Judicial review of tender rejection mandates clarity and consistency in administrative decisions, with intervention permitted only in cases of gross arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the bid of the petitioner in the technical evaluation which was submitted pursuant to an NIT No. RWD/C/ TAJO/VVP/GE-PRO- 01/2024 dated 05.07.2024 for construction of L027-Road from Kremapao Road to Raro vide package No. AR-03-03268. Amongst others, the petitioner has taken the grounds that such rejection has been done in a most mechanical manner without assigning any discernible reasons and by the said impugned action, the aspect of competitiveness in the financial evaluation has been reduced.

2. As per the facts projected in the petition, an NIT was floated by the Rural Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh on 05.07.2024 pertaining to the construction of L027-Road from Kremapao Road to Raro vide package No. AR-03-03268 in which the petitioner had participated. It is the case of the petitioner that such participation was duly done by submitting all the necessary documents and fulfilling all the necessary conditions. On 02.08.2024, the technical evaluation was done of the bids in which the bid of the petitioner was rejected. In the rejection memo, the grounds have been stated to be violation of the following clauses of the tender:

(i) 4.4B(b)(i);

(ii) 4.4B(b)(ii);

(iii) 4.7 (i).

3. It is the aforesaid action which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Sri G.Tarak, the learned Standing counsel of the Department. Sri D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel has appeared online for the Respondent No.5 who is assisted by Shri T. Bagang, learned counsel whereas Sri P. Bora, learned counsel is present for the Respondent No. 6.

5. Sri Taffo, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the communication dated 02.08.2024, three clauses have been cited for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. He has submitted that neither of the three clauses are applicable in the case of the petitioner and therefore could not have been taken into consideration for rejecting the bid. He has submitted that the first clause being 4.4B(b)(i) relates to the list of equipments and machineries which the petitioner had given as required under the NIT. Similarly, clause 4.4B(b)(ii) is on the requirement of list of technical personnel which was also submitted in accordance with law. He submits that the last clause namely 4.7(i) is on the aspect of giving misleading statement or misrepresentation or of having a record of poor performance. He submits that the said clause will not have any application at all as there was no instance of giving any misleading statement or misrepresenting any facts.

6. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the list of equipments and list of technical personnel submitted along with the bid which have also been annexed to the writ petition. He has submitted that the illegality of the impugned action becomes apparent inasmuch as in another contract which was initiated vide an NIT dated 28.10.2024. The petitioner was declared qualified and in the said NIT the same documents were given in the tender process. He has submitted that the said aspect