Judicial review over administrative actions is limited to preventing arbitrariness, and cannot address factual disputes, particularly in tender processes.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL as well as learned counsel for the intervener.

2. The petitioner files this application for quashing the decision of the Technical Bid Committee of respondent-BCCL dated 06.05.2024 whereby the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected; and also for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to proceed further with finalizing the tender and awarding the work to the successful bidder in relation to the bid in question.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the reasons for cancellation of technical bid cannot sustain in the eye of law as the reason assigned by the respondents-authority is not a genuine one because, the authorities have not applied its mind for cancellation of the same.

4. It has further been contended that this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, can entertain this application and grant relief to the petitioner. Apart from the same, it has further been contended that since the technical bid has also been cancelled, now the tender has already been processed and the third party interest has been created, therefore, the very initiation of the tender process is bad in law and rejection of the technical bid cannot sustain. Therefore, this Court should interfere with the same and extends benefits in favour of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the instant matter is arising out of the contract and as such in a tender document wherein the petitioner’s technical bid was not in order as such the technical committee has rejected the bid of the petitioner on the ground that he did not comply with Clause No. 10 of NIT (Part I/Cover I other important Documents (OID) Point No. 2 Appendix II. Therefore, the decision of the Technical Bid Committee of respondent-BCCL dated 06.05.2024 is well justified and requires no interference by this Court. It has further been submitted that as a matter of fact the Power of attorney was not in terms of appendix II as it was obtained much later.

6. So far as applicability of judicial review is concerned, it has been submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again has reiterated that on the basis of disputed documents, the relief sought for by the party concerned so far as the tender matter is concerned cannot be extended, however, the party aggrieved may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the undisputed fact is that the respondent-BCCL floated a tender. The petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted its bid on 29.11.2023. Consequent thereto, the technical bids were opened on 04.12.2023 and after evaluation of the technical bids the petitioner was declared to be technically disqualified on 06.05.2024 on the ground that he did not comply with Clause No. 10 of NIT (Part I/Cover I other important Documents (OID) Point No. 2 Appendix II).

8. On perusal of Clause 10 of the NIT, basis upon which, the technical bids of the petitioner was declared to be disqualified, it appears that the power of attorney submitted by the petitioner was found to be not genuine.

9. So far as the power of attorney (Annexure 4 series) executed by the petitioner is concerned, if it is disputed then in that situation this Court cannot exercise the power of judicial review to consider the validity of technical bid and allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process rather the validity of the technical bid has to be considered by appropriate forum mainly the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

10. Therefore, this Court considering the fact that the technical bid of the petitioner was not in compliance of Clause 10 of the NIT, the order passed by the authority concerned cannot be faulted with.

11. We have also perused the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of