Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1319
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
V. Balasubramanian - Appellant
Versus
The Southern Railways, Represented by its, Senior Divisional Railway Manager. (Commercial), Madurai Division – Commercial, Madurai & Others - Respondent
W.P(MD). Nos. 325 & 3273 of 2022 & W.M.P(MD) Nos. 248, 249, 784, 2872 & 2873 of 2022
Decided On : 17-03-2022
For the Petitioners:M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, S. Manohar, R3, V.R. Shanmuganathan, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the distinct eligibility criteria for different types of contracts and the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters.
Headnote:
Tender Contracts - Parcel Handling - Clause 4.1.2 - SLR Leasing - Financial Viability - Judicial Review
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the award of a tender for parcel handling at Madurai Junction, claiming that their bid should have been accepted instead of the third respondent's bid. The Railways contended that the SLR leasing contract and the Parcel Handling Contract are different, and the petitioner's bid did not fulfill the tender criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the work experience required for participation in the tender for the Parcel Handling Contract, as per clause 4.1.2, was not satisfied by the petitioner through their SLR leasing contracts. The court also noted that the financial viability of the petitioner's bid was in question, and the eligibility criteria for an SLR leasing contract is different from that of a Parcel Handling Contract. The rejection of the petitioner's bid was found to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender.
Issues: The main issue was whether the SLR leasing contract and the Parcel Handling Contract are similar, and whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid was arbitrary, irrational, or illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was in line with the tender conditions, and the eligibility criteria for the two types of contracts are distinct. The court also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions without costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.325 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made by the second respondent in Letter No.Madurai Division – Commercial/UC37-PHC-Madurai-2021/01092830046534 dated 15.12.2021 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to award the tender for the contract for parcel handling at Madurai Junction subject matter of tender No.UC37-PHC-Madurai-2021 in favour of the petitioner, within a time that may be stipulated by this Court.
W.P.(MD)No.3273 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made by the second respondent in his proceedings in No.U/C/37/PHC/WP dated 29.01.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to award the tender for the contract of parcel handling at Madurai Junction subject matter of tender No.UC37-PHC-Madurai-2021 in favour of the petitioner within a time that may be stipulated by this Court.)
Common Order
1. W.P(MD).No.325 of 2022 has been filed challenging the award of the tender in favour of the third respondent by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.12.2021, though the third respondent was ranked as L6 in the bid. According to the petitioner, the bid submitted by the third respondent is the most non-competitive and the acceptance of such a bid would result in disadvantage to the Railways who will have to pay higher handling charges. According to the petitioner, being the most competitive bid and the L1 tenderer, the petitioner’s bid ought to have been accepted instead of the third respondent’s bid.
2. W.P.(MD).No.3273 of 2022 has been filed by the very same petitioner challenging the order dated 29.01.2022 passed by the Railways indicating to the petitioner as to the reasons for rejection of his bid stating that the Parcel Handling Contract and the SLR leasing contract are different. Under the impugned order, the petitioner has been informed that the value submitted by him cannot be taken into account as the same pertains to SLR leasing contract and does not pertain to the Parcel Handling Contract which is totally different.
3. According to the Railways, the contract awarded to the third respondent is a Parcel Handling Contract and not an SLR leasing contract.
4. Heard Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Ajmal Associates for the petitioner, Mr.S.Manohar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/Railways and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the third respondent.
5. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Ajmal Associates for the petitioner would reiterate the contention of the petitioner that the SLR leasing contract and the Parcel Handling Contract are similar in nature. He would submit that both relate to cargo handling and the petitioner having satisfied the work experience as per the tender document and being the L1 tenderer, the Railways ought to have accepted the petitioner’s bid, but instead according to him, they have accepted the third respondent’s bid who is ranked L6 in the bid arbitrarily and illegally, though the said bid ex-facie is a most non-competitive bid which is disadvantageous to the Railways who will have to pay higher handling charges to the third respondent which is detrimental to the public interest.
6. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel would also point out that the previous tender containing similar terms as to the present one had been awarded to the petitioner by the Railways, after qualifying technically in all the criteria and conditions. According to him, the action of the Railways in granting the tender in favour of the third respondent is in violation of condition No.4 of the Standard General Conditions, Eligibility Criteria and special condit
