The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, highlighting the principles of judicial restraint and the need for a high degree of fairness in action by the Tender Awarding Authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged the decision of official respondents No.1 to 4 whereby they have accepted the bid of respondent No.5 and awarded tender in its favour. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the official respondents to award the contract in his favour.

2. It appears that respondent No.4 had invited online bids from the registered Cooperative Transport Societies of Kargil region for provision of Civil Hired Transport (CHT) of load carrier 1/1.5-ton pickup (4x4). The NIT was issued vide No. 174/Cont/2023-24/ST-11 (4x4) dated 23.11.2022 through GeM portal in terms of Bid No. GEM/2022/B/2776503 dated 09.12.2022.

3. The petitioner as well as respondent No.5 also responded to the aforesaid NIT and submitted their bids. The last date for submission of bids was fixed as 02.01.2023 at 11:00 am and the bids were to be opened on the same day at 11.30 am. One of the conditions of the bid document was that minimum average annual turnover of the bidder for three years should be Rs.20.00 lacs, whereas the past experience required for the same/similar service was fixed as two years. On 02.01.2023, technical bids were opened by the Technical Evaluation Committee of the official respondents at 11.30 am and all the four participating bidders were found to be technically compliant. Thereafter, on 07.01.2023 financial bids were opened on GeM Portal and respondent No.5 was found to be L-1 bidder, whereas the petitioner was found as L-2 bidder. On 12.02.2023, the contract was awarded to respondent No.5.

4. The petitioner has challenged the action of the official respondents of awarding contract to respondent No.5 primarily on the ground that the said respondent did not possess the requisite experience of two years for same/similar service in terms of the tender conditions. It has also been contended that respondent No.5 did not possess minimum average annual turnover of Rs.20.00 lacs for the past three years. It has been submitted that respondent No.5-Cooperative Society, as per its own showing, came into existence on 24.07.2021 when certificate of registration as a Cooperative Society was issued by the Administration of UT of Ladakh, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that respondent No.5 was having either the requisite experience or the requisite turnover. It is contended that respondent No.5 was ineligible to participate in the tendering process, but the official respondents have not only entertained its bid, but have awarded the contract in its favour. On this ground it is urged that the action of the official respondents is illegal and liable to be quashed.

5. The official respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, after narrating the facts, the said respondents have submitted that, for a bidder to be eligible for participating in the tender, which is subject matter of the instant writ petition, it was not necessary that the bidder should have past experience of similar nature of service as a cooperative Society and that even the past experience of a bidder as non-cooperative society could also be taken into consideration. It has been submitted that respondent No.5 had the experience of four years of providing the services of Tata Mobile Vehicles to different Government Institutions and, in this regard, the said respondent had submitted a certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Drass, Kargil, therefore, even if respondent No.5 was constituted as a Cooperative Society only on 24.07.2021, still then, it had the past experience of more than five years even prior to its registration as a Cooperative Society which fact was taken into account by the official respondents while entertaining its technical bid. It has been further submitted that the financial bid submitted by respondent No.5 was found to be the lowest, as such, the contract was awarded in its favour.

6. Thus, according to the official respondents, there has been no irrationality or illeg