Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, L. S. PIRZADA
Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges penalty for tender compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments raised regarding validity and penalties. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court analyzes relevant facts and claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. discussion on contract validity and obligations. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. evaluation of penalty clause and its validity. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. judicial review standards applied. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 7. court's conclusion and order. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
(1) By way of the present petition, the petitioner-Company prays for the quashing and setting aside of the communication dated 15.04.2025 written by respondent No.4, Additional State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Gujarat, directing the petitioner to complete the project as per the tender terms, failing which a penalty amounting to 3% of the Bid Value shall be imposed.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The petitioner is a registered supplier that participated in a tender process initiated by the respondent authorities under Bid No.GEM/2024/B/4678089 dated 01.03.2024 for the printing and distribution of printed maps and was declared as an L-1 Bidder. The
A public authority cannot impose penalties beyond the scope of contract terms, particularly after the validity of the tender has expired, as such actions are arbitrary and violate principles of fairn....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The main legal point established is that technical errors in bid submission do not warrant interference in the tender process, especially when it may delay the implementation of a public project.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
