Important Point – If State can justify tender conditions in context of particular contract, Courts will not interfere.

Alok Aradhe, J.

In this intra Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP Nos.632/2018. In order to appreciate the appellant’s challenge to the impugned order and the issues involved in the petition, it is necessary to set out the facts, which are stated infra:

The Facts:

2. The e-tender notice was issued on 02.05.2017 by the respondent No.3, namely, Provincial Level Contract Committee, by which e-tenders were invited under double cover system from the reputed and registered Transport Firms/Companies for supply of Trucks for transportation of goods for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. The last date for submission of bids was 22.05.2017. On 24.05.2017 the technical bids were to be opened whereas the financial bids were scheduled to be opened on 25.05.2017. The appellant as well as respondent No.4 responded to the aforesaid tender notice by submitting their bids. The technical bids were opened on 24.05.2017 in which the appellant as well as respondent No.4 were found to be qualified by the Contract Committee.

3. The appellant after opening of the technical bids submitted a representation to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department on 24.05.2017 in which it was stated that respondent No.4’s bid was not technically responsive. The financial bids were opened on 25.05.2017 in which bid of respondent No.4 was found to be the lowest. The appellant again submitted a complaint/representation to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department on 26.05.2017. However, it is the case of the appellant that no action was taken on its representation. Thereupon, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, namely, OWP No.731/2017 in which the learned Single Judge passed an order of status-quo on 31.05.2017 with regard to the e-tender notice dated 02.05.2017. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.03.2018 with the following directions:-

“(i) The official respondents shall take a final decision on the representation/complaint filed by the petitioner against the decision of the official respondents declaring respondent No.4 technically qualified to participate in the financial bid. The decision, as aforesaid, shall be taken by the official respondents within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them.

(ii) While taking decision on the representation/ complaint of the petitioner the official respondents shall be well within their right to consider as to whether the petitioner who was declared qualified in the technical bid alongwith respondent No.4 was also technically qualified to participate in the price bid or not. The decision to be taken by the official respondents would be by way of a speaking order to be conveyed to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4.

(iii) Further decision with regard to award of contract to the eligible lowest bidder shall depend upon the consideration as directed above.

(iv) The official respondents shall, however, be at liberty to re-tender the contract in question, if none of the bidders who had responded to the e-tender are found to be eligible to execute the contract or the official respondents otherwise feel such course to be in public interest.”

4. In pursuance of directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, the appellant submitted a representation to the Director, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department on 19.03.2018. The representation was considered vide order dated 27.03.2018 and sanction was accorded to the allotment of the contract for hiring of trucks for carrying food grains for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 in favour of respondent No.4. Thereafter by an order dated 31.03.2018 the contract in question was awarded to respondent No.4.

5. The appellant filed another writ petition, namely, OWP No.632/2018 before this Court in