Judicial review of tender processes is constrained; courts should not interfere unless decisions are arbitrary or favor a specific party, respecting the employer’s evaluation within the scope of relevant law.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is presented to assail a bid evaluation process undertaken by the respondent authorities in the Excise Department in connection with a bidding process initiated by a e-Bid Notice dated 15.12.2023 published by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition after opening of the financial bids of the technically qualified bidders on 13.02.2024 to challenge the emergence of the respondent no. 6 as the highest bidder [H-1] with the petitioner emerging as the second highest bidder [H-2].

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition can be stated, briefly, as follows:-

By the e-bid Notice published on 15.12.2023, the respondent no. 3 invited online bids through E-tender system from intending bidders for grant of India Made Foreign Liquor [IMFL] Retail ‘Off’ License to successful bidders. The bidding was a two-bid system consisting of Technical Bids and Financial Bids. In the e-Bid Notice, the eligibility requirements for participation in the bidding process were laid down. As per Clause 2.1, an individual, a partnership firm, a limited liability partnership [LLP] or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or subsequent enactments were made eligible to participate in the bidding process.

3. Finding herself eligible, the petitioner responded to the e-Bid Notice by submitting her bid. In addition to the petitioner, seven other bidders including the respondent no. 6, submitted their bids in response to the e-Bid Notice. At the stage of Technical Bid evaluation, Technical Bids of three bidders were rejected and the Technical Bids of the remaining five bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, were accepted for evaluation of their Financial Bids. The said fact is reflected in the Tender Summary Report generated and updated on 20.01.2024 after opening of the Technical Bids on 20.01.2024.

4. The Financial Bids of the five technically qualified bidders were thereafter, opened on 13.02.2024. On opening of the Financial Bids, the respondent no. 6 had emerged as the highest bidder [H-1] with the petitioner as the second highest bidder [H-2]. Thereafter on 19.02.2024, the petitioner submitted a Representation before the Tendering Authority, that is, the respondent no. 3 alleging a nos. of irregularities in the process of evaluation of the Technical Bid of the respondent no. 6. The Tendering Authority taking the Representation of the petitioner on board, considered the alleged irregularities highlighted by the petitioner and after consideration, the Representation was disposed of by a Communication dated 23.02.2024 recording a view that the bidding process needed no interference. It was after disposal of the Representation, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on 01.04.2024.

5. I have heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5; Mr. G. Bokolial, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

6. Mr. Nath, learned Se