Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, A.C.J., ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Manjeet Plastic Industries – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 3857 of 2024
Decided On : 12-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging eligibility criteria in tender - Petitioner, a sole proprietorship, declared ineligible under Section VI(a) of tender conditions - Court held that the authority has discretion to set eligibility criteria and interference is only warranted in cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness - Petitioner failed to demonstrate any such vice in the decision-making process. (Paras 1, 8, 84, 86)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - The court's role is limited to ensuring legality and fairness in the decision-making process, not to substitute its judgment for that of the authority - The authority is the best judge of its requirements. (Paras 38, 62)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a sole proprietorship, challenged the rejection of its bid for a tender due to ineligibility under Section VI(a) of the bid document, which stipulated that only certain types of firms could participate. The petitioner argued that the criteria were arbitrary and irrational.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the authority's decision-making process regarding the eligibility criteria.
Issues: Whether the eligibility criteria set forth in the tender document were arbitrary and whether the petitioner could challenge them after participating in the bidding process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority has the discretion to set eligibility criteria and that the petitioner, having participated in the bidding process, could not challenge the criteria post-rejection.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, A.C.J.
I.A. No. 6839 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for seeking amendment/addition in the Para (1) and prayer clause of the writ petition, which reads as under:
(b) Stay the operation of letter dated 04.07.2024 till the issues involved in the writ petition get resolved.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant interlocutory application has been filed for seeking leave of this Court to amend the Para (1) and prayer clause by challenging the decision taken by the Technical Committee, by which, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 04.07.2024 has opened the Technical Bid, in which, the petitioner’s bid has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, are having no objection in allowing the instant interlocutory application.
4. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the said interlocutory application needs to be allowed and accordingly, allowed.
5. Accordingly, the prayer, as allowed is treated to be the part of the present petition.
6. In view thereof, I.A. No. 6839 of 2024 stands allowed.
Prayer
7. Initially, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
(b) Direction in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions in the nature thereof, inter alia directing Respondent No 3 to consider the representation dated 14.05.2024 submitted by the Petitioner and to consider the bid submitted by the Petitioner, a sole proprietor, on 05.06.2024 being bid no. 597386 and consider the same for evaluation as per the terms of the tender MRE/33/252/2024-25/1509.
(c) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction directing not carry on with the technical procedure until the issue involved in the present writ is resolved.
(d) Disqualifying Respondent No 4 from participating in the tender process for not being eligible as per the eligibility criteria laid down in the Tender documents.
(e) Stay the implementation/execution of tender/bid no. MRE/33/252/2024-25/1509 pending the outcome of the present writ petition.”
Factual Matrix
8. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, needs to be referred, which read as under.
9. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm having its registered office at Plot No. 336, Sector 17, HSIIDC, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The petitioner is a reputed manufacturer with extensive experience in school supplies including school bags, uniforms, and shoes of different sizes and specifications since 1980 and is a duly registered sole proprietorship under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
10. The petitioner has been supplying school bags and footwear to various states such as Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. There has never been any objection raised in any tendering authority, before or after grant of tender, to the petitioner's corporeal form.
11. On 08.05.2024, respondent No. 3 floated Tender bearing Bid No. MRE/33/252/2024-25/1509 (hereinafter, the “impugned tender”) on 08.05.202
The court upheld the authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria for tenders, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
Point of Law- Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or comme....
Judicial review of tender conditions is restricted to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, reinforcing that the authority determining eligibility criteria has the discretion and expertise in c....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides; decisions should reflect fair competition and not accommodate late submissions of corrected bids....
Tender - Tender conditions are required to be read as provided in the tender document and if there are two views or construction possible than the view of the authority interpreting the tender docume....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
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
