THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Oil India Ltd. And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 4549 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2023
General Financial Rules, 2017 - Rule 151 - Constitution of India.1950 - Article 14 - Debarment from bidding - Tender evaluation - Contravention - Improper arbitrary - Illegal - Whether process adopted or decision made by authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone - Held, Considered of this case in backdrop of questions posed in case - In this case respondent had participated in tender process with experience and credentials of Drillmec Inc. USA - Senior counsel for petitioner could not successfully dispel that first of two alternatives for bidding in the tender process credentials of respondent no. 3 was neither applicable nor was it invoked - It could not be dispelled that as per Clause banning order on respondent did not make respondent ineligible to bid - Answer to both questions referred in case of is in negative - Therefore petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference in award of tender in question by respondent to respondent - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Raheja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.C. Sen, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Case of the petitioner and prayer made in the writ petition:
2. In brief, and bereft of detailed particulars, the case of the petitioner i.e. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. is that the respondent no. 1 had invited International Competitive Bids bearing Tender No. SDG8439P22/09 for procuring 5 (five) nos. of 2000 HP VFD Drilling Rigs with Top-Drive and accessories. The petitioner had participated in the said bidding process. In due course of tender evaluation, the bid submitted by the respondent no. 2, i.e. Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd. was accepted and consequently, the Letter of Acceptance (LOA for short) was issued on 28.06.2022 in favour of the respondent no. 2. It is projected that the tender was awarded to the respondent no. 2 by giving a total disregard to the “Guidelines on debarment of firms from bidding dated 02.11.2021”, issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, which according to the petitioner, applies to the respondents as the respondent no. 3 firm was debarred for a period of 3 (three) years w.e.f. 09.11.2021, which was subsequently reduced to 1 (one) year, i.e. upto 08.11.2022. It is projected that a complaint was made to the officials of the respondent no. 1, to the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Independent External Monitors (IEMs) against the illegal, improper arbitrary and discriminatory evaluation of the bid submitted by the respondent no. 2, which was in contravention of the said debarment guidelines, but no action was taken. It is also projected that although after several requests, the IEM took up the hearing on the matter, but till the date of filing of the writ petition, the final report of the IEMs, if any, has not been made available to the petitioner. Later on, interim report dated 29.06.2022 was released by the IEMs. However, on 30.06.2022, the petitioner was informed by e-mail that on 28.06.2022, LoA, i.e. Letter of Acceptance was issued to the respondent no. 2. Accordingly, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for setting aside the letter of award dated 28.06.2022.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:
3. The learned senior counsel for petitioner has meticulously referred to the pleadings and voluminous documents on record. It was submitted that the respondent no. 2, i.e. Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ME&IL for short) was the holding company of respondent no. 3, i.e. Drillmec S.P.A., Italy. On 09.11.2021, the competent authority of respondent no. 1, i.e. Oil India Ltd. had passed an order to debar the respondent no. 3 from entering into any contract and doing any business with the respondent no. 1 for a period of 3 (three) years, which was effective till 08.11.2024. However, vide order dated 21.02.2022, the appellate authority of the respondent no. 1 had reduced the period of debarment to 1 (one) year, thus, making the debarment effective till 08.11.2022. It was submitted that the information regarding the debarment of respondent no. 3 was uploaded in public domain in the Central Public Procurement Portal. It was submitted that as per the relevant clauses tender document as well as debarment guidelines, the respondent no. 3 is an “allied firm” of the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 1 had opened the techno-commercial bid on 15.12.2021. The petitioner had submitted its representation dated 25.02.2022 to the Director (Operations) of respondent no. 1 and informed the said authority about the reasons why as per the “bid rejection criteria” and “bid evaluation criteria”, the respondent no. 2 d
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra & Ors.
W.B. Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction India Ltd.
Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom
N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain
CRRC Corporation Ltd. v. Metro Link Express for Gandhinagar and Ahmadabad (Mega) Co. Ltd.
Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.
Monte Carlo Ltd. v. National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd.
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.
Judicial review of tender decisions is limited to instances of mala fides or arbitrary actions; a tendering authority's judgment on technical specifications is paramount unless proven fundamentally f....
The rejection of the petitioners' bid was justified based on their debarment for supplying substandard quality drugs, in line with the State's policy to keep such manufacturers out of the tender proc....
The Banning Order by NPCIL constituted a debarment, making Respondent No.2 ineligible to participate in the tenders, as per the eligibility criteria of the tender.
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.
The court emphasized the need for restraint and deference to the tendering authority's interpretation of tender documents, especially in technical matters, and highlighted the importance of public in....
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.