2021 Supreme(Mad) 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Pace Digitek Infra Pvt. Ltd., (Represented by its Authorised Signatory), Rajiv Maddisetty & Others - Petitioner
Versus
Tamil Nadu Fibernet Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director & Another - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 18302, 16736 & 18036 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2021

Headnote:

Writ petitions challenging the tender process of the first respondent in respect of Bharat Net Project in the State of Tamil Nadu to provide broadband connectivity of one GBPS to 17662 villages in the State of Tamil Nadu through laying of optical fiber cables. The petitioner in W.P.No.18302 of 2020 challenged the rejection of its technical bid for Package “B” vide communication of the first respondent dated 01.12.2020. The petitioner in W.P.No.18036 of 2020 challenged the communication of the first respondent dated 01.12.2020 rejecting summarily its bid for Packages “A”, “B”, “C” & “D”. The petitioner in W.P.No.16736 of 2020 challenged the tender process of the first respondent on the ground that they have been prevented from participating in the tender of the first respondent as they were unable to upload their bid documents in .xlsx format which according to them is the prescribed format as per the tender conditions. The Court held that the reasons given for rejection of PACE DIGITEK’s bid are arbitrary and irrational shocking the conscience of the Court as the reasons furnished cannot be considered as technical in nature as any person who has experience in tenders but does not have any expert knowledge about the procurement can give those reasons. The Court further held that the decision taken by the Technical Evaluation Committee to reject STERLITE’s technical bid cannot be treated as unfair, unreasonable or irrational. The Court also held that MANTRA as an interested bidder ought to have noticed the Corrigendum. If they noticed the Corrigendum, they could have very well downloaded the file in .xls format and after filling up the details uploaded the same in the E-portal which they have admittedly not done so.

Fact of the Case:

Writ petitions challenging the tender process of the first respondent in respect of Bharat Net Project in the State of Tamil Nadu to provide broadband connectivity of one GBPS to 17662 villages in the State of Tamil Nadu through laying of optical fiber cables.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the reasons given for rejection of PACE DIGITEK’s bid are arbitrary and irrational shocking the conscience of the Court as the reasons furnished cannot be considered as technical in nature as any person who has experience in tenders but does not have any expert knowledge about the procurement can give those reasons. The Court further held that the decision taken by the Technical Evaluation Committee to reject STERLITE’s technical bid cannot be treated as unfair, unreasonable or irrational. The Court also held that MANTRA as an interested bidder ought to have noticed the Corrigendum. If they noticed the Corrigendum, they could have very well downloaded the file in .xls format and after filling up the details uploaded the same in the E-portal which they have admittedly not done so.

Issues: Whether the reasons given for rejection of PACE DIGITEK’s bid are arbitrary and irrational shocking the conscience of the Court as the reasons furnished cannot be considered as technical in nature as any person who has experience in tenders but does not have any expert knowledge about the procurement can give those reasons. Whether the decision taken by the Technical Evaluation Committee to reject STERLITE’s technical bid can be treated as unfair, unreasonable or irrational. Whether MANTRA as an interested bidder ought to have noticed the Corrigendum. If they noticed the Corrigendum, they could have very well downloaded the file in .xls format and after filling up the details uploaded the same in the E-portal which they have admittedly not done so.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the reasons given for rejection of PACE DIGITEK’s bid are arbitrary and irrational shocking the conscience of the Court as the reasons furnished cannot be considered as technical in nature as any person who has experience in tenders but does not have any expert knowledge about the procurement can give those reasons. The Court further held that the decision taken by the Technical Evaluation Committee to reject STERLITE’s technical bid cannot be treated as unfair, unreasonable or irrational. The Court also held that MANTRA as an interested bidder ought to have noticed the Corrigendum. If they noticed the Corrigendum, they could have very well downloaded the file in .xls format and after filling up the details uploaded the same in the E-portal which they have admittedly not done so.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition filed by PACE DIGITEK in W.P.No.18302 of 2020 and quashed the impugned communication dated 01.12.2020 issued by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s bid and the subsequent communication dated 03.12.2020 giving reasons for rejection and directed the first respondent to consider the PACE DIGITEK’s bid for further evaluation on merits and in accordance with law. The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by STERLITE and MANTRA in W.P.Nos.18036 & 16736 of 2020 respectively.