Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 73
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
D. Biswas, Acting C.J. and A. Roy, J.
Dewanchand Ramsaran Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - Respondent
W.A. No. 5 of 2005
Decided On : 01.02.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.N. Choudhury, P. Kataki and N. Barkataki, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: P.K. Goswami, S.N. Sharma and H. Rahman, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tender conditions did not prescribe quoting the same price for multiple rigs, and the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the tender conditions and the limited scope of judicial review in interfering with administrative decisions on public contracts.
Headnote:
Tender - Charter Hiring of Rigs - Clause 1.1.1, Clause 24.1, Instructions to Bidders - The court discussed the interpretation of the tender conditions, specifically Sub-clause (vi) of Clause 1.1.1, and its implications on the acceptance of multiple rigs with varying prices. The court held that the tender conditions did not prescribe quoting the same price for multiple rigs, and the only essential requirement was that the price offered should remain firm during the execution of the contract. The court emphasized that the purpose of allowing multiple rigs would be severely restricted if the same price was mandated, and the absence of such a stipulation in the tender conditions indicated that different prices for alternate rigs were permissible. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the tender conditions and the limited scope of judicial review in interfering with administrative decisions on public contracts.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the acceptance of a tender for the charter hiring of rigs by OIL India Ltd. The appellant contended that the respondent's offer of multiple rigs at different prices was non-responsive and should have been rejected, while the respondent argued that the tender conditions did not require the same price for multiple rigs and that their offer was valid and responsive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender conditions did not prescribe quoting the same price for multiple rigs and emphasized the importance of adhering to the tender conditions. It held that the respondent's offer was responsive and valid, and the contract had been awarded to the lowest bidder in accordance with the tender conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's offer of multiple rigs at different prices was in conformity with the tender conditions, justifying the award of the contract to them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the tender conditions, specifically Sub-clause (vi) of Clause 1.1.1, and the absence of a stipulation requiring the same price for multiple rigs. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the tender conditions and the limited scope of judicial review in interfering with administrative decisions on public contracts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent's offer was responsive and valid, and the contract had been awarded to the lowest bidder in accordance with the tender conditions.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The stand off follows a divergence in perceiving the true import of the option to offer multiple rigs in a public contract for "Charter Hiring of 1(one) No. 1400 HP (Minimum) Capacity Rig Package For Drilling In Assam and Arunachal Pradesh" under the OIL India Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'the OIL'). The appellant/writ petitioner's contention that multiple rigs, if offered, are essentially to carry the same price bid and hence the respondent No. 4's tender being non-responsive was liable to be rejected having been negatived by the learned Single Judge, it is in appeal, assailing the judgment and order dated 23/12/2004 passed in WP(C) 8923/2004.
2. We have heard Mr. KN Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P Kataki and Mr. N Barkakoti, Advocates for the OIL and Mr. H Rahman, learned Senior CGSC for the Union of India.
3. The abbreviated pleaded facts indispensably necessary for disposal of the appeal have to be stated. A Notice Inviting Tender No. OIL/CCO/DRLG/GLOBAL/84/2004 for Charter Hiring of 1(ONE) No. 1400 HP (Minimum) Capacity Rig Package For Drilling In Assam and Arunachal Pradesh was floated on behalf of the OIL. A pre-bid conference was held on 24/6/2004 and 25/6/2004 in which the representatives of 10 firms including the appellant participated. It being a two-bid tender system, the technical bids of the participating tenderers including the appellant and the respondent No. 4 were opened on 22-7-2004. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, it qualified in the technical bid but it transpired that the respondent No. 4 had offered multiple bids and in one of their offers in compliance of Sub-clause (iii) of the Clause 1.1.1., it submitted along with the unpriced technical bid a Memorandum Of Understanding purportedly made with M/s IDM Equipment Ltd. As the appellant/writ petitioner claimed to have an exclusive tie-up with M/s IDM Equipment Ltd., for supplying rigs to it only, it obtained a clarification to the above effect from the said company and brought it to the notice of the authorities of the OIL contending that on that ground alone, the respondent No. 4 be disqualified. As OIL proceeded unheeded to consider the commercial bid of the respondent No. 4 as well, the appellant company by its letter dated 11/10/2004 while reiterating its objection as above also drew the attention of the OIL that the respondent No. 4's bid was non-responsive for having quoted separate prices for the alternate rigs it being impermissible under the terms and conditions of the tender. The objection was reiterated in its letter dated 14/10/2004. The OIL authorities, however, proceeded to open the commercial bids of the respondent No. 4 along with that of the appellant/writ petitioner. The price bids of the two rates offered by respondent No. 4 and of the rig of the writ petitioner/appellant were as follows.
Respondent No. 4 Rs. 33,18,50,000/-
Writ petitioner Rs. 33,55,47,000/-
Respondent No. 4 Rs. 44,35,00,000/-
4. The lower bid of the respondent No. 4 was accepted by OIL and a letter of intent was thereafter issued in its favour on 3/12/2004. The correspondences between the appellant/writ petitioner, M/s IDM Equipment Ltd. and OIL on the issue of Memorandum Of Understanding were annexed as Annexures IV, V and VII to the writ petition.
5. OIL countered by contending, inter alia, that under the NIT the tenderer could offer more than one rig with firm price for each rig and that all such rigs were to be techno-commercially evaluated. It maintained that if any of the rigs offered was found techno-commercially acceptable, the same could be accepted for the contract. Out of the four bidders, one bid was rejected for not being technically viable. While the respondent No. 4 offered two rigs, the appellant/writ petitioner offered only one. The rigs of both the tenderers were technically acceptable on evaluation. On opening of the price bid, the appellant/writ petitioner having raised objection against the respondent N
