Back
PUNEET GUPTA
Tarlochan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Judgment :
Puneet Gupta, J. :
The case of the petitioners is that the respondents floated the tender for road transport of Bulk Petroleum for advanced winter supplies for bulk Oil Storage and handling location in J&K (UT) vide tender No.RCC/NR/PSO/OPS/PT-141/20-21 for a period of three years with option for extension upto further two years at the sole discretion of the company. As per the clause of 1.4 of the NIT, the tenderer has to offer minimum three number of TTs in case of General and General MSE tenders and minimum two numbers in case of SC/ST. The petitioners participated in the tender process and their rates were also found as L-1 as the rates were quoted per K-1/Km. In the Reverse Auction process the tenderers was allowed to place his offer in terms of %age of the departmental estimate displaced on the portal and the band allowed for the same was 0% to -10%) of the departmental estimate. In terms of Clause 1.11 the evaluation of tenders was placed in Lot-1 and Lot-2 as per the ranking in terms of highest number of TTs offered by a particular bidder. The above process was to be continued till the requirement of the trucks is fully met against this tender. It was mentioned in
: Tenderer has no right to bank upon tender when life of tender was over.
The Court emphasized the limited scope for interference in matters relating to tender/contract and the need for public interest and prudence in applying the principle of restraint.
Point of Law : Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the con....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to tender conditions and equitable distribution under the MSE Policy, allowing for judicial intervention only in cases of illegality.
The rejection of a bid in a tender process should be based on merit consideration and qualification for allocation, and parties must plead and produce sufficient material to substantiate their case.
The interpretation of tender documents grants the issuer discretion to reject additional requests not explicitly provided for in the tender terms.
The court held that a mandatory requirement in a tender notice must be strictly followed by the tendering authority, and any deviation from such requirement without justification would amount to arbi....
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
