IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANDEEP MEHTA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
M/s Rana Construction and Engineer Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 82, 83, 85, 86 of 2023
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Letters of Acceptance – Vehemently and Fervently – Court writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order – Appellant herein submitted separate bids in pursuance of a Notice Inviting Tender Chief Works Department (PWD) for construction – Held, Court affirmative opinion that Executive Committee consisting of Special Commissioner and Special Secretary to Government of Assam decision so taken is not vitiated on test of fairness and reasonableness learned Single Judge decision requiring appellant to furnish APS was affirmed does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in these intra-Court writ appeals – Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. These 4(four) intra-Court writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 07.02.2023 whereby, WP (C) No. 5294/2022; WP (C) No. 5297/2022; WP (C) No. 5298/2022 and WP (C) No. 5301/2022 preferred by the writ petitioners/appellants were dismissed. As these appeals involve identical issues of facts, they are being heard and decided together.
2. The appellant herein submitted separate bids in pursuance of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD) for construction of 155 roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY). The appellant’s bids were accepted for the following packages as the price quoted by the appellant was found to be the lowest:
Name of the work - upgradation of roads from T04-Abhyapuri Pachnia Road including cross drainage works and routine maintenance of the works for five years under Package No. AS-02-187, PMGSY-III, Batch-1, 2022-23.
Letter of Acceptance dated - 06.08.2022
Contract price - Rs. 10,22,40,436/-
Performance Security - Rs. 25,57,000/-
Additional Performance Security - Rs. 3,78,64,000/-
WP (C)/5297/2022
Name of the work - upgradation of roads from MRL11-Road from Majirgaon to Borjhar via Agchia including cross drainage works and routine maintenance of the works for five years under Package No. AS-11926, PMGSY-III, Batch-1, 2022-23.
Letter of Acceptance dated - 06.08.2022
Contract price - Rs. 3,60,67,998/-
Performance Security - Rs. 9,02,000/-
Additional Performance Security- Rs. 1,33,06,000/-
WP (C)/5298/2022
Name of the work - upgradation of roads from MRL07-Tetelia Lakhitari to Maheswari Mitani including cross drainage works and routine maintenance of the works for five years under Package No. AS-11929, PMGSY-III, Batch-1, 2022-23.
Letter of Acceptance dated - 06.08.2022
Contract price - Rs. 4,85,46,891/-
Performance Security - Rs. 12,14,000/-
Additional Performance Security - Rs. 1,79,96,000/-
WP (C)/5301/2022
Name of the work - upgradation of roads from T05-Dimaruguri Kamarpur Road including cross drainage works and routine maintenance of the works for five years under Package No. AS-17-260, PMGSY-III, Batch-1, 2022-23.
Letter of Acceptance dated - 06.08.2022
Contract price - Rs. 18,39,13,378/-
Performance Security - Rs. 45,98,000/-
Additional Performance Security - Rs. 2,12,29,000/-.”
3. After issuance of the Letters of Acceptance (LoA), the appellant was asked to furnish Performance Security and Additional Performance Security (for short, hereinafter referred to as “APS”) for the reason that the prices quoted by the appellant in its bids were much below the estimated construction costs. Being aggrieved by the demand of APS, as indicated above, the appellant filed the captioned 4(four) writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by the common judgment & order dated 07.02.2023, which is assailed in the instant bunch of intra-Court writ appeals.
4. Addressing the Court for admission of appeals and stay of the impugned judgment and order, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the employer being the Chief Engineer, PWD, was totally unjustified in imposing the APS, which is against the terms and conditions of the NIT. His further submission was that pursuant to the letters dated 24.06.2022 proposing imposition of APS issued by the Chief Engineer, Border Roads, Assam, the appellant/writ petitioner forwarded a rational justification for the lower bid amount with a detailed financial analysis and reasons for the appellant’s quoting prices below the estimated costs. However, the respondents failed to consider the price/financial analysis report submitted by the appellant and hence, the entire process whereby, APS was demanded from the appellant, is vitiated. He thus, implored the Court to exercise the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned demand of APS against the 4(four) succ
The decision to award a tender contract must be arrived at after objective consideration and evaluation and cannot be interfered with if not found to be arbitrary, malafide, irrational, unreasonable,....
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents providing a clear basis for their claims and considering the petitioner's submissions in compliance with the previous court direction.
Point of Law : Deviation in the NIT resorted to by the State was arbitrary and therefore colourable, the appellants are at liberty to pursue other legal remedies, before any appropriate forum of law,....
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....
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.
The court upheld the award of a contract based on public interest considerations, affirming that deviations from tender procedures do not necessarily invalidate the process if no responsive competito....
Rounding off of financial bids in tender processes is permissible and does not invalidate the tender, even if one bid is marginally below the threshold set by guidelines.
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.