A single bid can be accepted if the procurement was advertised, qualification criteria were not unduly restrictive, and prices were reasonable. The court emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in the procurement process and cautioned against unbridled judicial review in contract matters, particularly those pertaining to mega developmental projects.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. An order and judgment dated 16-09-2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in WPC No. 2397/2023 titled Manzoor Ahmad Malik v. UT of J&K and others, is the subject matter of challenge in this intra Court appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The impugned order is assailed on multiple grounds, but before we advert to these grounds of challenge, we deem it appropriate to set out few material facts.

2. The respondent No.3, in terms of e-NOIT No. 68 of 2022-23 dated 19-01-2023, invited bids from A-Class contractors, inter alia for up gradation of road from Lambibari to Tarkundi Gali Zayrat via Sarpanch Mohalla and Numbardar Nisar Khan Mohalla. Seven bidders responded to the e-NIT for the aforesaid work which included respondent No.5, Fazal Rehman Dar. The technical bids of all the six bidders, except respondent No.5, were declared as “non-responsive”. The appellant, feeling aggrieved of the declaration of respondent No.5 as sole qualified bidder in the technical evaluation for the work in question and consequent issuance of letter of allotment of the work in his favour, filed WPC No. 2397/2023. In the writ petition the primary grouse of the appellant was that, respondent No. 3 could not have accepted the single bid and issued Letter of Allotment [LOA] dated 10-08-2023 in favour of the respondent No.5 as the same was contrary to and in violation of the CVC Guidelines enumerated in Vigilance Manual issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. The appellant prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the LOA dated 10-08-2023 issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.5 being in violation of the CVC guidelines. The appellant prayed for issuing fresh tenders for the work in question. The writ petition was opposed by the respondent No.5 who was on caveat. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that reliance placed by the appellant on the Central Vigilance Manual, to claim that single bid cannot be accepted and the work needs to be re-tendered, was totally misplaced, in that, the guidelines laid down in the CVC Manual stood replaced and substituted by the subsequent guidelines issued by the Department of Expenditure, Department of Finance, Government of India. Respondent No.5 placed strong reliance on the latest manual for procurement of works, which, in clause 5.6.7, clearly provides that subject to fulfillment of certain requirements, a single bid tender can be accepted and such bidder allotted the work.

3. The Writ Court considered the rival contentions and placing strong reliance on clause 5.6.7 of the manual for procurement of work issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, concluded that there was no illegality in accepting the bid of the respondent No.5 and that the appellant had failed to show that any of the requirements laid down in Clause 5.6.7 supra was not satisfied in the case of award of the contract to the respondent No.5. Resultantly, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition in limine vide its order and judgment dated 16-09-2023, which the appellant has assailed before us in this appeal.

4. Before us also, the appellant reiterated his argument that acceptance of single bid and allotment of the work without any competition is contrary to and in violation of the guidelines on the subject issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. It is argued that despite there being subsequent instructions and guidelines by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the guidelines issued by the CVC were intact and, therefore, could not have been ignored by the respondent No.3.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Writ Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, does not call for interference by us.

6. Indisputably