IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (KOHIMA BENCH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Hi-Tech Construction and Co. and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland and Ors. - Respondents
WP (C) Nos. 52 Of 2020, 93 and 94 Of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Power of High Court to issue Certain Writs - three applications are taken up together for disposal pursuant - Whether respondent No. 5 was eligible as per the Standard Bidding Documents - Whether actions of respondent authorities were malafide and consequently the non-impleading of the employer, i.e., the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B) Division would not be fatal for instant Writ Petition - Whether persons whose names have been mentioned in bid document of respondent No. 5 i.e., 'Minimum Key Personnel for Project' comes within the ambit of legal, financial or technical Advisor of the employer in relation to the project - Whether respondent No. 5 had the technical capacity – Held, Cancellation of the NIT by Tender Cancellation Corrigendum and as such the question of the cancellation of the NIT had already attained finality - Now as regards to the question as to whether there is any illegality of the respondent No. 5 to quote percent below the estimated rate, counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any of the provisions of the Standard Bidding Document whereby quoting percent below the estimated price would disqualify the respondent No. 5 - In absence of any viable range being fixed in the tender documents, it is no longer res integra that the tenderers are free to quote at such rate which is viable in their estimates to do the work and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot in absence of viable rate being fixed in the tender documents go into the said question. Apart from the above, the Standard Bidding Document duly taken care of the interest of the State when the Bidder quotes a rate lower than the estimated rate as would be clear for the Clause 2.21.1 (i) of the Standard Bidding Document as well as the submissions of the Senior Additional Advocate General. Accordingly, the said contention of the petitioner is also misconceived and tenable – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Additional AG appearing for the State respondent, and Mr. R. Iralu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, for the private respondents.
2. These three applications are taken up together for disposal pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 3/2022, Writ Appeal No. 361/2021, Writ Appeal No. 359/2021 and Writ Appeal No. 360/2021. The brief facts of the instant case is that on 24.07.2019, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region had issued a communication to the Secretary of North Eastern Council thereby conveying Administrative and Financial sanction for an amount of Rs. 136.96/- Crores for the project "Tening to Lekie Road" (37.5 kms) in Nagaland under the 100% Central Sector Scheme "North-East Road Sector Development Scheme" (NERSDS); and pursuant to the said communication dated 24.07.2019, the Adviser to the North Eastern Council by its letter dated 05.08.2019 had accorded the Administrative approval to the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Nagaland at an estimated cost of Rs. 136.96/- crores as per the broad break up of the items of the work given in Annexure-1 of the said communication towards the road project "Tening to Lekie Road" (37.5 kms) in Nagaland under the 100% Central Sector Scheme "North-East Region Sector Development Scheme"(NERSDS). On the basis of the said approval, the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B) issued a notice inviting tender, vide NIT No. CE/(R & B)/NERSDS/CORR(Part I)/2019-20 dated 13.09.2019 in respect to five different works including the work "Tening to Lekie Road" in Nagaland. The said NIT was published in the local newspapers in the State of Nagaland.
3. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who claims to be Class-1 contractors registered with the Nagaland Public Works Department and interested to participate in the competitive bidding process initiated on the basis of the NIT dated 13.09.2019 for the work "Tening to Lekei Road" in Nagaland mentioned at Serial No. 4 of the said NIT filed a Writ Petition No. 187/2019, assailing certain criteria adopted by the respondent authorities in respect of the work in question in NIT dated 13.09.2019 and more particularly with respect to the lowest rate/approved rate/SOR apart from the decision taken in the pre-bid meeting dated 24.09.2019. It was the specific case of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the said proceedings that the process adopted by the respondent authorities in respect of the work were contrary to the guidelines in the communication dated 05.03.2019 of the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MoRTH), Government of India, and the Conditions No. 2 (vi) of the communication dated 05.08.2019 issued by the North Eastern Council Secretariat (NECS) while granting the administrative approval to the NPWD for the work in question. The said Writ Petition was registered and numbered as WPC/187/2019. This Court vide its order dated 01.10.2019 issued notice making it returnable by 01.11.2019 but did not grant any interim order as prayed for therein, and thereby deferred the consideration of the interim order to 01.11.2019. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 participated in the said tender process by submitting a bid as a joint venture that is "Vertex-Multi Builder-Hi-Tech. On 19.10.2019, the technical bid was opened in which the said joint venture, i.e., "Vertex-Multi Builder-Hi-Tech", along with two other bidders were found to be technically viable and on 21.10.2019, the financial bid was opened and it was found that the price quoted by the joint venture i.e., "Vertex-Multi Builder-Hi-Tech" was the lowest at Rs. 1,22,94,22,509.75p.
4. The said Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 187/2019 came up for consideration on 01.11.2019. On the said date the respondent authorities ap
Point of Law : when a bidder who has not been issued the final acceptance of the bid by the competent authority being the highest bidder acquires no vested right ,but the bidder has right to equality....
The court upheld that the authority's interpretation of RFP criteria for bid evaluation is final, emphasizing that nomenclature of a project does not solely determine eligibility.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to essential tender conditions and minimal judicial interference in matters of government contracts, upholding the Tender Committee's decision to rejec....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.