Limited scope of judicial review in tender matters

1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Coastal Disaster Risk Reduction Project (CDRRP), Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL-II) IDA Credit No. 5279-IN International Competitive Bidding (ICB) pursuant to the tender notification passed by the 1st respondent dated 06.06.2015 and to quash the ICB contract for procurement of 2600 numbers of 25W VHF boat equipment and 18700 number of 5W VHF hand-held equipment for Country Crafts passed in favour of the 3rd respondent published on 12.01.2017 and to direct the 1st respondent to award the contract in favour of the petitioner.

2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows:

(i) According to the petitioner, the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu received credit facility from the World Bank towards the cost of Coastal Disaster Risk Reduction Project (CDRRP) under the scheme of Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL-II) for procurement of VHF (Very High Frequency) equipments (i.e.) Seamless Communication Equipments meant for fishermen of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu, the Commissioner of Fishers, the 1st respondent, called for Bid under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) for supply of 25W VHF equipments for in-shore boats (2600 numbers) and 5W VHF equipments for Country boats (18700 numbers).

(ii) On 08.06.2015, the 1st respondent issued General Procurement Notice for Tender International Competitive Bidding for Seamless Communication Equipments. On 10.12.2015, the 1st respondent issued the final corrigendum with changes in the specifications. Subsequently, on 01.02.2016, the bids were opened. As per Section I, Clause 4.1 of the Instruction to Bidders, a Bidder may be Firm that is a private entity, a Government-owned Entity or any combination of such Entities in the form of a Joint Venture (JV) under an existing entity agreement or with the intent to enter into such an agreement supported by a Letter of Intent. For Non-Manufacturers or Distributors or Dealers, the Evaluation and Qualification Criteria were provided under Section III (II) of the Bid Document.

(iii) According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is not a Manufacturer, therefore, they have to meet the Clause for Non-Manufacturers under Section III (II) of the Bid Evaluation Criteria. As per the said Section, the Bidder should have supplied, installed and commissioned one or multiple orders to the value of Rs. 5.19 crores in any one of the last five years (i.e.) from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 with satisfactory performance for a minimum period of one year as on the date of submission of Bid. That apart, a Bidder should have sold 4500 VHF/UHF or similar wireless equipments in any one of the last five years (i.e.) from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015. When the Bid was opened on 01.02.2016, it was found that the Bids for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent to be evaluated under Non-manufacturers Bid and an Evaluation Committee/Tender Scrutinizing Committee consisting of various technical experts, headed by a Superintendent of Police (Technical) was formed for procurement of the said equipments.

(iv) By letter dated 23.02.2016, the 1st respondent requested additional documents from the petitioner and the petitioner provided the additional documents on 29.02.2016. The Tender Scrutinizing Committee headed by the Superintendent of Police (Technical) had its meeting and considered the Bids submitted by the Bidders. Thereafter, the 1st respondent on 22.03.2016, sought clarifications with respect to the Country of Origin, Make and Model and the petitioner gave the details with the covering letter dated 28.03.2016. The petitioner appeared before the Tender Scrutinizing Committee and the petitioner made a Power-point Presentation on 04.04.2016 explaining the technical specifications of the equipments and other components those quoted in their Bid. The 3rd respondent was also directed t