Back
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, SRI ANANDA SEN
Suruchi Foods Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
Ananda Sen, J.
1. The writ petitioner-appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 22.06.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 260 of 2022, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the ground for not entertaining the technical bid of the appellant is absolutely bad, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dealing with the writ petition. It is his contention that on two grounds, the appellant was declared technically unfit and both the grounds are nonest. The technical bid of the appellant was rejected on two grounds, namely, (1) foreclosure of contract of the appellant by the Government of Gujarat vide letter dated 08.11.2011 and (2) foreclosure of contract of Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (which is a group company of this appellant, having financial linkage) by the Government of Gujarat. Both the appellant and M/s Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. are separate legal entities and interse share holding and financial linkage cannot be a ground to technically disqualify this appellant in this tender. So
Debarment or foreclosure of contracts cannot serve as permanent disqualifications for bidders in tender processes, particularly when significant time has elapsed since the event.
Court held the rejection of the technical bid improper but denied relief due to petitioner's delay in seeking intervention and its acknowledgment of financial unviability.
Tender authorities have broad discretion in evaluating bids, and a failure to comply with mandatory document submission requirements justifies disqualification unless clear malice is shown.
Blacklisting cannot be indefinite and should be for a reasonable period, and the negative consequences of blacklisting cannot continue beyond the period of blacklisting itself.
Blacklisting cannot have indefinite effects; once the period lapses, entities regain eligibility to bid, ensuring adherence to fair administrative principles.
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
The rejection of a technical bid based on incorrect addressing was deemed arbitrary and unreasonable, as the tender documents had not been amended to reflect such a requirement.
Point of Law : Interpretation of terms of tender document is best left to tendering authority and if the interpretation so made is manifestly in consonance with the language of tender document, Court....
Judicial intervention in tender processes is limited; courts should exercise restraint unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
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
