Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
The Managing Director, M/s. DSR Sons India Engineers Private Limited, Chengalpattu – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 24840, 24843, 24846, 24848, 24849, 24851, 24853, 24854, 24855, 24857, 24858, 24859 & 24861 of 2023 & W.M.P. Nos. 24240, 24243, 24245, 24247, 24251, 24253, 24255, 24256, 24258, 24259, 24261, 24263, 24264, 24260, 24268, 24269, 24270, 24272, 24273, 24275, 24276, 24279, 24277, 24278, 24282 & 24283 of 2023
Decided On : 07-09-2023
For the Petitioner:M/s. S. Doraiswamy, Advocates. For the Respondents: J. Ravindran, AAG-IX Assisted by A.S. Ragul Adhithya, for R1 to R4, M/s. P.T. Ramadevi, SC for GCC
The interpretation of tender conditions is final when capable of more than one interpretation, and judicial intervention in matters of contract involving state instrumentalities requires overwhelming public interest.
Headnote:
Tender Rejection - Interpretation of Tender Conditions - 40kms Radius - [TENDER REJECTION] - [Interpretation of Tender Conditions] - [Clause 3.4(e) of eligibility criteria] - The court discussed the interpretation of the tender conditions regarding the requirement for the Central Hot Mix Plant to be located within a 40kms radius from Chennai City. The court emphasized that when tender conditions are capable of more than one interpretation, the interpretation of the author of the tender is final. The court also highlighted the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving state instrumentalities. The court found that the decision of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's bid was not vitiated by malafides, arbitrariness, irrationality, or perversity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their tender bid by the respondents, alleging malafides and restrictive interpretation of the tender conditions. The respondents rejected the bid on the ground that the Central Hot Mix Plant was located beyond 40kms from Chennai City.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's bid was not vitiated by malafides, arbitrariness, irrationality, or perversity. The court dismissed the writ petitions, but granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge the letter of acceptance issued by the respondents if any successful bidders failed to satisfy the distance condition of 40kms from the '0' point of the City.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the tender conditions regarding the requirement for the Central Hot Mix Plant to be located within a 40kms radius from Chennai City. The petitioner alleged malafides and restrictive interpretation by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when tender conditions are capable of more than one interpretation, the interpretation of the author of the tender is final. The court also highlighted the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving state instrumentalities.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, but granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge the letter of acceptance issued by the respondents if any successful bidders failed to satisfy the distance condition of 40kms from the '0' point of the City.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the reason for rejection order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent in tender Ref. No. BRR.C. No. B4/3404/2023 (8) quash the same and direct the respondents to process the bids of the petitioner along with other bidders in accordance with law.)
Common Order:
1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the tender summary reports of the respondents 2 to 4, refusing to admit the tender of the petitioner on the ground that the plant site of the petitioner is located beyond 40kms of the Chennai city.
2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent herein issued a tender notification for laying of roads in various zones of Chennai Corporation. The petitioner is a State Level Class-1 Contractor having work experience in execution of various works for Government Departments and Chennai Corporation. It is also stated by the petitioner that it is having six sets of latest model machineries including imported milling machines, 9 meters Sensor Paver Machines etc. As per the tender notification the bids shall be submitted online on or before 20.07.2023 at 15.00 hours in the office of the 3rd respondent in the presence of the bidders. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 19.07.2023 was issued by the 3rd respondent extending the time for submission of the bids till 27.07.2023 at 03.00 p.m and opening of the bid on 28.07.2023 at 03.00 p.m.
3. The petitioner intended to participate in the above tenders. Though the petitioner was in possession of all the required machineries with perfect working conditions as per the check list S.No.7 Clause 3.4(e) including Cold Milling Machine and Central Hot Mix Plant. The respondents 1 to 4 refused to issue machinery certificate with an intention to prevent the petitioner from participating in the tender. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.22631 of 2023 and when the matter came up before this Court on 28.07.2023, the counsel appearing for official respondents submitted that they were ready to conduct inspection of the machineries of the petitioner on the next day and issue necessary certificate had the machineries been found to be in order. After recording the said statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents, this Court permitted the petitioner also to participate in the tender bid, subject to condition, the petitioner should produce the machinery certificate on or before 01.08.2023. It is also averred by the petitioner that machinery certificate was issued by the respondents on 31.07.2023 and the same was produced before the 3rd respondent on 01.08.2023. Subsequently, on 16.08.2023 and 17.08.2023 the petitioner received an e-mail from the 5th respondent stating that the petitioner''s tender had been rejected for the reason that the Central Hot Mix plant of the petitioner is not located within 40 kms from Chennai City. It is also stated by the petitioner though the respondents uploaded the details of the successful bidder, in respect of the other tenders, in which the petitioner had not participated, the details of successful bidder in respect of tenders in which petitioner had participated have not been uploaded in the official portal. Hence, challenging the tender summary reports uploaded in the official portal of the first respondent/Corporation rejecting the petitioner''s bid on the ground that Central Hot Mix plant is not available within 40kms, the petitioner has come by way of this writ petition.
4. Mr.S.Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner intended to submit his bid in response to the tender notice, the respondents wantonly refused to issue machinery certificate. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.22631 of 2023 and only thereafter the respondents issued machineries cer
