IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar , J.
M/s. Dev Prabha Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
The Bharat Coking Coal Limited And Others - Respondent
W.P. (C) No.1757 of 2020
Decided On : 18-02-2021
Tender cancellation order - Business of executing various kinds of contractual works including mining and transportation - Reverse Auction Process - Revocation of tender process - Seeking issuance of direction upon respondents to go for revocation of tender process in view of Clause 34 of Instructions to Bidders (TTB') of NIT from stage of opening of reverse price bidding, if as per impugned tender cancellation notice, reasons are technical. Also direction upon respondents not to go ahead with publication of fresh NFT or undertaking another bidding process for works in question - Held, It is a settled law that even if some procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is seen, writ court should not interfere in matter if action of respondents is found to be bonafide and taken in the public interest - Power of cancellation of tender was always with respondents in view of Clause 35 of ITB and since revocation of tender process as provided in Clause 34 of ITB was not possible, decision of the tender committee to cancel same after due deliberation does not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality, unreasonableness or malafide requiring any interference of this court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction - Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the tender cancellation order under Reference No. BCCL/CMC/F-e-Nrr/Coal/Tptn38/Bastacolla/2020 dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby the General Manger (C.M.C), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad-Respondent No.4 has cancelled the NIT under reference No.BCCL/CMC/F-e-NIT/Coal/Tptn38/Bastacolla/2020/59 dated 28.01.2020. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to award the tender in question in favour of the petitioner, which has been declared LI bidder after the Reverse Auction Process (in short 'RAP7). Alternatively, the petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to go for revocation of tender process in view of Clause 34 of Instructions to Bidders (in short TTB') of the NIT from the stage of opening of the reverse price bidding, if as per the impugned tender cancellation notice dated 17.06.2020, the reasons are technical. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to go ahead with publication of fresh NFT or undertaking another bidding process for the works in question.
Factual Matrix of the Case
3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of executing various kinds of contractual works including mining and transportation. An online open tender was invited by the respondent- BCCL vide NIT no.:BCCL/ CMC/F-e-N]T/Coal/Tptn 38/Bastacolla/2020/59 dated 28.01.2020 for transportation of Coal from different sources of Bastacolla area, BCCL to different destinations in BCCL including allied jobs for 1186 days. The estimated cost as declared in the e-Notice Inviting Tender was Rs. 153,36,29,906/- at diesel base price @ Rs.67.60 per litre. Altogether, five bidders including the petitioner participated in the said tender and the bid of one of the bidders, namely, Dhansar Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. was declared as rejected in the technical evaluation in view of the conditions laid down in clause 9 of general terms and conditions of the NIT having quoted the highest value (HI). The tender summary report containing the technical bid opening summary and technical evaluation summary details were uploaded by the respondents on 21.02.2020 at e-procurement system of CIL. The petitioner as well as three other bidders qualified in the technical evaluation of the bids which was informed through e-mail communication dated 21.02.2020 itself and called for e-auction to be started from 01:00 PM on 21.02.2020. The price bid of all the bidders were more than 10% of the estimated value of the work (Rs. 153,36,29,906.00) and thus as per the terms and conditions of the NFT, the respondents fixed the auction starting price at Rs. 168,69,92,897/- and the reverse auction process was started. During the reverse auction process, only two bidders, namely, AKA Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner participated and quoted their respective prices at Rs. 167,89,92,897.00 and Rs. 167,09,92,897.00, respectively, and thereby the petitioner was declared as LI. The petitioner, after being declared LI, invoked the provisions of clause 20.2 of the FTB as mentioned in the NFT and vide its letter dated 22.02.2020 offered suo moto rebate worth about 6.75% and again vide another letter dated 25.02.2020 offered suo moto rebate of further 6.22% and thereby the price quoted by the petitioner then stood at Rs.162,90,34,128/- only against the original declared LI price of the petitioner, which was Rs. 167,09,92,897/. The petitioner has brought on record the typed copy of works/charts prepared by the respondents after considering all the head wise/item wise quoted rates by the above four bidders including that of the petitioner as well as considering the rebates offe
State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. CWE-SOMA Consortium
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.
Rishi Kiran Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs. Kandla Port Trust and Others
Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 751
Maa Binda Express Carrier & Another Vs. North-East Frontier Railway & Others
W.B. SEB Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.
Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India & Others
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489
Rashbihari Panda v. State of Orissa (1969) 1 SCC 414
Union of India & Others Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Another
Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd. (1993) 1 SCC 445
Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others
Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji
State of Punjab Vs. Bandeep Singh
South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Ravinder Kumar & Another
The tender inviting authority has the right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the bidding process at any time prior to the award of contract without assigning any reason.
The cancellation of a tender by an authority after the bidding process is complete is arbitrary unless supported by clear, substantiated justifications, reaffirming the need for transparency and fair....
The court clarified that no opportunity of hearing is required for the lowest bidder before cancellation of a tender notice, as no vested right exists until the bid is confirmed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.