Back
ANITA SUMANTH
Sasi Road Finishers and Engineering Contractor Rep. By its Managing Partner, B. Sangeethkumar – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Engineer, Highways Department – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders (i) dated 17.05.2024 (Bid No.1046286) relating to Tender No .42/2023-2024/HDO dated 26.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, (ii) dated 25.03.2024 made in Na.Ka.No.Plant Certificate/E Va A/2024 and (iii) dated 04.04.2024 made in Na.Ka.No. Plant Certificate/E Va A/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue Working Condition Certificate of Plant and Equipment to enable the 1st respondent to
re-do the process of Technical Bid by including the petitioner’s name.
The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in Government contract work from 1997. The subject-matter of this writ petition is an on-line tender notice relating to road widening issued by Uthangarai (H) C&M Sub-Division of the State Highways department for widening, from two land Paved Shoulders to Four Lane and Strengthening at KM 0/0 – 1/550 of connecting road between SIPCOT and Pochampalli – Kondamandapatti.
2. The tender notice was issued on 26.02.2024 and the documents
The court established that compliance with mandatory tender requirements and the avoidance of conflicts of interest are essential for valid participation in government tenders.
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 tender matters is limited to ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness; minor technical defects in bids do not justify interference unless proven arbitrary or mala fide.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
Judicial review of tendering decisions is limited to assessing legality, with courts refraining from substituting the tender authority's decisions unless in cases of illegality or manifest arbitrarin....
Judicial review of tender decisions is limited; compliance with stipulated conditions is mandatory, and non-compliance justifies rejection.
Remitted the matter back to the High Court for deciding the matter on merits even when the subject tender had already been finalized and the purchase order had been issued to the successful.
An unsuccessful bidder lacks standing to challenge the issuance of a Letter of Intent when disqualified for failing to meet mandatory requirements.
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
