Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
M/s. Sumathi Constructions Represented by its Proprietor R. Chandrakannan – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Principal Secretary to Government Industries Department Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 29185 of 2022 & W.M.P. Nos. 28479, 33480 & 34559 of 2022
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Tender - Writ Petition - Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 - Section 10, 11 - Rules 2(e), 24, 27 - Lack of transparency in rejection of technical bid - Petitioner's lack of valid license as Class-I contractor and submission of false documents for ownership of equipments - Court's reliance on legal provisions and precedents to dismiss the Writ Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Class-I contractor, filed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of their bid for a tender. The petitioner did not possess a valid license as a Class-I contractor at the time of tender evaluation and had submitted false documents for ownership of equipments. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, citing lack of transparency in the rejection of the technical bid and the petitioner's failure to qualify in the technical bid.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner did not have a valid license as a Class-I contractor and had submitted false documents for ownership of equipments, leading to disqualification in the technical bid. The Court also noted the petitioner's failure to resort to the appeal provision under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.
Issues: Lack of transparency in rejection of technical bid, validity of petitioner's license as Class-I contractor, submission of false documents for ownership of equipments, failure to resort to appeal provision under Section 11
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, Section 10, 11, and Rules 2(e), 24, 27, as well as legal precedents to determine the lack of transparency in the rejection of the technical bid and the petitioner's disqualification. The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to tender regulations and the need for valid qualifications in the technical bid.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated. The Court allowed the amendment in the cause title to implead the 9th respondent and dismissed W.M.P.No. 28479 of 2022. No order as to costs was given.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned proceedings in CW/NIT.No.21/T.No.21/2022-23 dated 06.10.2022 in cancelling the Tender Notice NIT No. 21/CW/T.No. 21/2022-23 dated 18.07.2022 of the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to proceed with the said Tender in accordance with law.)
1. The Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the tender proceedings in CW/NIT.No.21/T.No.21/2022-23 dated 06.10.2022 by cancelling the Tender Notice NIT No. 21/CW/T.No. 21/2022-23 dated 18.07.2022 of the fourth respondent / Superintendent Engineer, Civil Wing, SIPCOT Ltd., Chennai and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to proceed with the said Tender.
2. The writ petitioner M/s. Sumathi Construction is a sole proprietorshiop concern and registered as Class-I contractor with Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu and other entities of Government of Tamil Nadu including SIPCOT. They also do private contract works. They claimed that they have experience in executing contract works and also possess required equipments. They had also executed works for SIPCOT and some works are also on going. It was stated that the second respondent / Chairman and Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department, SIPCOT limited, Chennai, had floated a tender notice NIT No.21/CW/T.No.21/2022-23 dated 18.07.2022 for the work of formation of approach Road from Km 143/4 of NH-44 to SIPCOT Industrial Park, Dharmapuri. The last date for submission of the bids was 23.08.2022 till 03.00 p.m. The earnest money deposit payable was Rs.7,07,300/-. It was a two cover tender and tenders must be submitted in sealed covers to the fourth respondent, the Superintendent Engineer, Civil Wind, SIPCOT Ltd., Chennai. The total value of the contract was Rs.1394.6 lakhs. The bid documents were sold till 22.08.2022 till 05.00 p.m. A pre-bid meeting was scheduled on 03.08.2022 at about 11.30 a.m. It was stated that the petitioner along with four other tenderers had submitted their bids. The petitioner claimed that they had satisfied all the terms and conditions of the tender. The bids were opened at 23.08.2022 at 03.30 p.m., by the fourth respondent.
3.It was claimed by the petitioner that the results of the evaluation of the tender were not notified by the fourth respondent to the petitioner inspite of several visits and requests. The petitioner then gave a representation on 03.10.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner raised several allegations against the fourth to seventh respondents. As a matter of fact, the fourth respondent was also impleaded in his personal capacity as the seventh respondent. The petitioner claimed that they had quoted the lowest tender. The petitioner then received the proceedings impugned in the present Writ Petition on 06.10.2022 in CW/NIT.No.21/T.No.21/2022-23 whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner was declared unsuccessful. It is claimed that reasons were not given. Questioning that particular proceedings, the Writ Petition had been filed.
4.When the matter came up for first hearing on 04.11.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court had ordered as follows:-
“Mr. M.Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 2 to 5, 7 and 8. He needs two weeks time to respond.
2.In the meanwhile, in respect of the work, for which the tender in question was called for by the respondents, such work should not be entrusted to any third party for a period of three weeks.
3. Post the matter after two weeks.”
5. Thereafter, counter affidavits were filed by the fourth respondent and also by the second respondent. A reply was also filed by the petitioner. The 7th respondent in view of the specific allegations raised against him had also filed a counter affidavit. Sin
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency and adherence to tender regulations, including the need for valid qualifications in the technical bid, as per the ....
The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in interfering with tender processes, especially in matters involving technical issues, and highlighted the limitations of the court's expertise i....
Tender authorities must adhere to statutory criteria and act transparently; courts will not interfere unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafide conduct is presented.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
The court established that transparency in the tender process is essential, and failure to comply with statutory requirements can render the tender process invalid.
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
