Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Mitali Thakuria, J.
M/s NK Enterprise and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of AP represented by the Secretary, Rural Development, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar and ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/70/2024
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Tender - Writ Petition - Article 226 - The court discussed the legality of the tender process under the Constitution, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to procedural norms, ultimately dismissing the petition due to lack of merit and procedural compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the selection of respondent No. 6 as the lowest bidder in a tender process for MGNREGA works, claiming their bid was lower. They alleged irregularities in the evaluation process and sought judicial intervention after their complaints were ignored.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender process was conducted transparently, with the petitioners failing to raise objections during the bid opening. The court upheld the decision of the authorities, stating that the petitioners did not demonstrate any procedural irregularities or violations of their rights.
Issues: Whether the selection of respondent No. 6 as the lowest bidder was valid and whether the petitioners' rights were violated during the tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it should refrain from interfering in tender processes unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in matters involving technical evaluations.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel assisted by Mr. L. Tadam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the private respondent No.6.
2. This application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, against the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. DRDA/KKD/MGNREGA/NIT-02/2021-22 dated 15.11.2023, issued by the Joint Director (RE), Department of Rural Development, Itanagar, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The aforesaid tender (NIT) pertains to the supply and procurement of materials for MGNREGA works-2023-24 for the CD-Block of Damin under Kurung Kumey District. This application challenges the legality and validity of the impugned Board proceeding minutes dated 11.12.2023, issued by the Tender Opening Committee, which recommended respondent No. 6 as the Lowest Bidder (L1); the impugned Letter of Acceptance dated 10.01.2024, issued by the Project Director, DRDA, to respondent No. 6; the validity of the agreement dated 11.01.2024, between respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 6; and the supply order dated 11.01.2024 issued by respondent No. 4.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a proprietorship firm/Govt. contractor with its main office at Senki Park, Itanagar, P.O.-R.K. Mission & P.S.-Itanagar, in the District of Papum Pare. This firm authorized Petitioner No. 2 to participate in the tender process on its behalf. The Joint Director (RE), Rural Development, Itanagar, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15.11.2023 for the supply and procurement of materials pertaining to MGNREGA works for 2023-24 for the CD-Block of Damin under Kurung Kumey District. The estimated cost for the work quoted in the NIT was Rs. 2,36,97,051/- (Rupees two crore thirty-six lakhs ninety-seven thousand fifty-one) only.
3.2. The petitioners, having the requisite eligibility and qualifications, participated in the tender process. Both the petitioner (M/s N.K. Enterprises) and respondent No. 6 (M/s Pacho Enterprises) submitted their respective bids. According to the NIT, the date for opening the tender papers, both technical and financial, was initially set for 29.11.2023, but was postponed to 06.12.2023. Subsequently, by a circular dated 05.12.2023 issued by the PD, DRDA, Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, the date for opening the tender papers was further postponed to 11.12.2023 due to an ongoing flagship scheme in the District by the Hon'ble Minister (Home & RD).
3.3. After the technical bids were completed by the petitioners and other firms, and after the financial bids were evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Committee, the financial bid was opened on 11.12.2023. The Board Proceeding minutes dated 11.12.2023 recommended respondent No. 6 as the Lowest Bidder (L1) and the petitioner Nos. as L2 bidder. Dissatisfied with this recommendation and suspecting delay tactics by the respondent authorities, the petitioners filed an RTI application seeking information about the financial bids and other documents submitted by respondent No. 6. Information was furnished to the petitioners on 27.12.2023.
3.4. The estimated cost for the tender was Rs. 2,36,97,051/- (Rupees two crore thirty-six lakhs ninety-seven thousand fifty-one) only. According to the technical sanction received through RTI, respondent No. 6 quoted Rs. 2,15,41,816.8/- (Rupees two crore fifteen lakhs forty-one thousand eight hundred sixteen point eight) only, while the petitioners quoted Rs. 2,13,27,346/-(Rupees two crore thirteen lakhs twenty-seven thousand three hundred forty-six) only. Thus, respondent No. 6 quoted an amount higher than the petitioners by Rs. 2,14,470.8/- (Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four hundred seventy point eight only). Therefore, the petitioners' bid was lower than that of
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited to cases of clear procedural violations or arbitrariness, emphasizing the importance of transparency and adherence to established norms.
An unsuccessful bidder cannot challenge the award of a tender if disqualified in the technical evaluation, as they lack standing to do so.
An unsuccessful bidder lacks standing to challenge the issuance of a Letter of Intent when disqualified for failing to meet mandatory requirements.
The court emphasized that the award of contracts should be in public interest and not interfered with unless there is evidence of malafide or irrationality.
The importance of full and fair disclosure of all material facts when invoking the court's jurisdiction, and the consequences of suppressing material facts in a writ petition.
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contr....
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....
Cancellation of tender where L-1 bid within 5% limit, suspecting cartel without evidence, and inconsistent with prior awards exceeding limit, held arbitrary, violative of Article 14 warranting judici....
The court mandated adherence to tender conditions, emphasizing that procedural violations invalidate selections made via non-compliance with established rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
