IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
JARPAL - JPW - DMC – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4510 of 2024
Decided On : 12-12-2024
(A) Additional Terms & Conditions (ATC) - Clause 19.2(II)(B) - Local Content (Make in India) Certificate - Technical bid rejection - Petitioner's certificate dated 17.08.2024 was not historical as required - Joint Venture/Consortium Agreement not in accordance with prescribed format - Essential conditions of tender must be strictly complied with - Clarifications sought were non-compliant with historical document requirement. (Paras 46-52)
(B) Judicial Review - The State must act fairly and reasonably in tender processes - The interpretation of tender conditions is primarily the responsibility of the authority inviting bids - Courts should exercise restraint unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafides. (Paras 70-72)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's technical bid was disqualified due to non-compliance with the Local Content Certificate requirement and the format of the Joint Venture Agreement, leading to a challenge in the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of the technical bid was upheld as the clarifications submitted did not meet the historical document criteria and the Joint Venture Agreement was not in the prescribed format.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Local Content Certificate could be submitted individually by partners and if the Joint Venture Agreement complied with the required format.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with tender conditions is essential, and the authority's interpretation of these conditions should be respected unless proven otherwise.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4, Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.
2. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is against the rejection of his technical bid on the ground that the Local Content (Make in India) Certificate dated 17.08.2024, submitted by the petitioner as a clarification sought by the State respondents vide Request No. 1 on 16.08.2024, was disqualified on the ground that the clarification dated 17.08.2024 was not in consonance with Clause 19.2(II)(B) of the Additional Terms & Conditions (Instruction to Bidder). As per Clause 19.2(II)(B) of the Additional Terms and Conditions in the Bid Document (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ATC’), whenever a clarification is required to be made in relation to some deficiency in the uploaded documents of a bidder, the shortfall information/documents sought for must pre-exist the date of opening the tender and should not have undergone any change since then.
3. In the present case, the last date of submission of tender/bids was 05.08.2024. The Local Content (Make in India) Certificate, submitted by the petitioner as a clarification to Request No. 1 was dated 17.08.2024. Clause 19.2(II)(B) of the ATC states as follows:
(II) For Two Part System:
(B) In case the Tender Committee finds that there is some deficiency in uploaded documents corresponding to the information furnished in Bid Submission Confirmation Sheet or in case corresponding document have not been uploaded by Bidders then the same will be specified online by Evaluator clearly indicating the omissions/shortcomings in the uploaded documents and allowing 7 days (7 x 24 hours) time for online re-submission by Bidders. Additionally, information shall also be sent by system generated email and SMS, but it will be the Bidder’s responsibility to check the updated status/information on GeM Portal regularly after opening of bid. No separate communication will be required in this regard. Non-receipt of e-mail and SMS will not be accepted as a reason of non-submission of documents within prescribed time. The Bidders will upload the scanned copy of all those specified documents in support of the information/declarations furnished by them in Bid Submission Confirmation Sheet within the specified period of 7 days. No further clarification shall be sought from Bidder.
The shortfall information/documents should be sought only in case of historical documents which pre-existed at the time of the tender opening and which have not undergone change since then. These should be called only on basis of the recommendations of the TC. So far as the submission of documents is concerned with regard to qualification criteria, after submission of the tender, only related shortfall documents should be asked for and considered. For example, if the bidder has submitted a work order document related to a particular contract without its completion/performance certificate, the certificate can be asked for and considered. However, no work order for new contract should be asked for so as to qualify the bidder.”
4. The petitioner’s technical bid was also disqualified on another ground, i.e. the Joint Venture Consortium Agreement submitted by the petitioner in relation to Request No. 3, was not in consonance with the format provided in Annexure-II of the ATC. As such, it was held by the State respondents that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the requirement of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 05.07.2024, (hereinafter refer
Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818
Central Coalfields Limited & Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Others
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Others
Ganapati RV-Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 589
G.J. Fernandez Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 488
Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 315
K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481
M/s Sorath Builders vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited & Another
New Horizons Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 478
N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 127
Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 273
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489
Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 492
Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Airport Authority of India
Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2020) 16 SCC 489
W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others
The court emphasized strict compliance with tender conditions, ruling that the Local Content Certificate must be submitted in the name of the Joint Venture, and deviations from prescribed formats are....
The court upheld the validity of tender disqualification based on non-compliance with specified documentation requirements, affirming the decision-making integrity of the evaluation committee.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; disqualification must be based on clear, justifiable criteria, and actions must not display arbitrariness or bias.
Bidders must comply strictly with tender requirements; misleading information and poor performance can result in disqualification. Judicial review in tender cases should maintain restraint, supportin....
The court ruled that tender eligibility criteria must explicitly state disqualifications, allowing joint venture experience to be considered for bidder qualifications, ensuring clarity and fairness i....
Joint Venture Agreements must establish joint and several liabilities; non-compliance results in bid rejection.
Important Point – Government Contract – Tender – Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during bidding process and that entire bidding process is carri....
Point of law: Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a lega....
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.