IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
M/s Shree Ganesh Traders – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 54 of 2023, Writ Petition [C] no. 4980 of 2022
Decided on : 28-04-2023
Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Tender Notice - Cancellation of bidding - Cancellation Notice/Order - Quashing - Claim of Compensation - Dietary services - Rate Contract - Whether contract is for sale of property or for execution of works on behalf of Government or one of its instrumentalities/agencies - Held, This Court has not found any reason to hold that the decision to go for a fresh bidding with modified clause on the experience criterion with a have a wider participation without relaxation other aspects already mentioned has suffered from any arbitrariness or mala fide or want of bona fide on part of respondent authorities - In considered view of Court, the decision to cancel previous bidding process initiated by Tender Notice with a decision to go for a fresh bidding process was taken on the basis of reasons assigned and no exception can be taken about reasons which are reasonable and rational and taken in public interest - In discussions made above and for the reasons assigned this Court has not found any element of arbitrariness irrationality or mala fide on part of respondent authorities in cancelling bidding process initiated by the Tender Notice - Writ Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The writ petitioner has instituted both the writ petitions – W.P.[C] no. 4980/2022 & W.P.[C] no. 54/2023 – under Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to competitive bidding processes initiated for ‘Outstanding of Dietary Services’ for patients of the institution, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta [‘the FAAMC&H, Barpeta’, for short]. While the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4980/2022, instituted first in point of time, is relatable to a decision taken by the respondent authorities for cancellation of the bidding process initiated by a Tender Notice [e-Tender] dated 27.05.2022 by a Cancellation Notice/Order [e-Tender] dated 29.07.2022, the subsequent writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 54/2023 has been preferred seeking setting aside and quashing of a Tender Notice [e-Tender] dated 05.08.2022.
2. The writ petitioner, M/s Shree Ganesh Traders is a proprietorship firm. It is claimed that it deals inter-alia in providing dietary services. It is stated that it has rendered dietary services at the FAAMC&H, Barpeta for about 11 [eleven] years apart from providing similar dietary services at the Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar [‘SMC&H, Silchar’, for short]. At the time of institution of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4980/2022, the petitioner had been providing dietary services for patients at the FAAMC&H, Barpeta pursuant to its emergence as the successful bidder in a competitive bidding process initiated in the year 2020.
3. The background events leading to the institution of the two writ petitions can be narrated as follows : On 27.05.2022, the Superintendent, FAAMC&H, Barpeta [the respondent no. 5 in both the writ petitions] had published the Tender Notice [e-Tender] of even date inviting e-Tenders on-line through e-procurement system via website – www.assamtenders.gov.in for ‘Outsourcing of Dietary Services’ for patients wherever it was deemed fit to cater to the day to-day requirements of the FAAMC&H, Barpeta. By the Tender Notice [e-Tender], the FAAMC&H, Barpeta intended to enter into a Rate Contract for 1 [one] year with approved licensed dietary service [in both vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet] providers, which can offer Dietary Service as per the terms and conditions contained in the tender documents. The Tender Notice [e-Tender] dated 27.05.2022 apart from being uploaded in the e-portal : www.assamtenders.gov.in, was also given wide publicity through Janasanayog.
3.1. The bidding process was in two-bid [Technical Bid & Financial Bid] system. The Technical Bid was to contain all the relevant information and desired enclosures in the prescribed format along with payment receipts of Tender Fee and Earnest Money Deposit [EMD]. The Tender Fee prescribed was Rs. 5,000/-and the EMD [Bid Security] to be deposited was Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Financial Bid was to contain only the commercial documents. To qualify in the Technical Bid, the bidder should have the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed in the Tender Notice [e-Tender] dated 27.05.2022 and for that purpose, a bidder was required to submit the documents mentioned specifically in Clause 14 of the Tender Notice [e-Tender] dated 27.05.2022. The Financial Bid was to be submitted in the Price Bid Form as per Annexure-2 of the tender documents and was to be submitted in the BoQ Format on-line. The prices were required to be quoted as per the specified format, failing which the bid was to be summarily rejected. The bids [consisting of the Technical Bid & the Financial Bid] were to be submitted in the on-line mode and a hard copy of the Technical Bid was also to be submitted by each bidder as per the guidelines set forth in the Tender Notice [e-Tender] dated 27.05.2022.
3.2. As per the Tender Notice [e-Tender] dated 27.05.2022, the last date of submission of bids [both Technical Bid and Financial Bid] was up to 10-30 p.m., 21.06.2022 and the date of opening of the Technical Bids was scheduled at 0230 p.m. on 22.06.2022. 3.3. In res
Ackruti Plates Private Limited and others vs. the State of Tripura and others
Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies
Maa Binda Express Carrier vs. North-East Frontier Railway
Michigan Rubber India Limited vs. State of Karnataka
State of Jharkhand and others vs. CWE-SOMA consortium
The Purtabpore Co., Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others
Rajasthan Housing Board vs. G.S. Investments
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikash Parishad vs. Om Prakash Sharma
The authority may cancel a tender without reason if lack of competition is evident; bidders have no enforceable rights without formal acceptance of their bids.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The cancellation of a tender process before technical evaluation does not confer vested rights to bidders, and adherence to procurement laws is mandatory in future processes.
The tender inviting authority has the right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the bidding process at any time prior to the award of contract without assigning any reason.
The cancellation of a tender by an authority after the bidding process is complete is arbitrary unless supported by clear, substantiated justifications, reaffirming the need for transparency and fair....
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited; courts should exercise restraint unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
Court exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India has jurisdiction to examine decision making process without even going into merits of such decision.
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.