IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biswajit Mohanty, Savitri Ratho, JJ.
Panchasakha Carrier – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 12446 of 2022
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Tender Rejection - Road Transportation - Clause 1.1, Clause 1.3, Clause 1.4.7, Clause 1/4/12 - The court discussed the rejection of the petitioner's bid for road transportation of bulk petroleum products due to non-submission of third party inspection reports for two tank trucks. The judgment highlighted the mandatory requirements for submission of inspection reports, the petitioner's failure to comply, and the authority's decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's bid for road transportation of bulk petroleum products was rejected due to non-submission of third party inspection reports for two tank trucks. The petitioner argued that the trucks were already engaged by the opposite party and that the rejection violated the tender notice clauses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to submit mandatory third party inspection reports for the tank trucks, making the bid incomplete. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments and upheld the rejection of the bid, citing the authority's discretion in interpreting and enforcing the tender requirements.
Issues: Non-submission of mandatory third party inspection reports, violation of tender notice clauses, and allegations of mala fide intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to comply with mandatory tender requirements, including the submission of third party inspection reports, led to the rejection of the bid. The court upheld the authority's decision, emphasizing the discretion of the tender-issuing authority in interpreting and enforcing tender requirements.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as without merit, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
B.MOHANTY, J. - This writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the orders under Annexures-1 & 4/1 reflecting rejections of the petitioner's bid in connection with the tender for road transportation of bulk petroleum products by bottom loading tank trucks. Further prayer is to direct the opposite party No.2 to consider the petitioner's tender on merits as per the Tender Call Notice and award it the work of transportation of I.O.C.L's. bulk petroleum products ex-I.O.C.Ls Paradeep Terminal.
2. The present case relates to the Tender Call Notice issued by the opposite party No.1 under Annexure-2 inviting tender for road transportation of bulk petroleum products by bottom loading tank trucks vis-a-vis Paradeep Terminal for the year 2021-2022. Vide Annexure-A/1, it was made clear that clarification end date vis-a-vis the Tender Call Notice under Annexure-2 was 27/7/2021 and the document download/sale end date/bid submission end date was 14/8/2021 and bid opening date was 16/8/2021. Clause 1.1 of the Tender Call Notice made it clear that all the tank trucks would be subject to third party inspection and fabrication has to be carried out on a new tank from a PESO approved fabricator. Serial No.3 of Clause 1.3 made it clear that legible copies to be submitted with regard to valid R.T.O. registration and PESO license for the tank trucks (for short 'TTs') offered and TTs offered without these documents, would not be considered for evaluation. As per Clause 1.4.7 of the Tender Call Notice, a tenderer will have to offer TTs in the ratio of number of TTs required capacity wise i.e. 12-16 KL : 18-40 KL. It also made it clear that one tenderer can offer maximum 6 TTs in the ratio of 2 numbers TTs of 12-16 Kilo Litres (for short 'KL') capacity and 4 numbers TTs of 18-40 KL capacity. Like this minimum TTs which can be offered by a tenderer shall be in the ratio of one number of TT in 12-16 KL capacity and two numbers of TTs in 18-40 KL capacity. It also made it clear that that the TTs which would fall under the ratio specified shall be considered under LOT-1. In case a tenderer has offered TTs not in the desired ratio, then the TTs falling in desired ratio shall be considered as LOT-1 and other TTs offered beyond the ratio shall be considered in LOT-2. While allocation of TTs within L-1 rate is finalized, the offers from LOT-1 will be allocated and if the requirement is still not met, then allocation will be made from LOT-2. It also laid down the ranking procedure. At clause 1.4.9 it was made clear that all ready built TTs offered should have valid R.T.O. registration and PESO license as indicated earlier and as per Clause 1/4/12, the tenderer shall fill the details of ownership of TTs, R.T.O registration, PESO license etc. as applicable in the particulars of TTs offered. It also provided for reservation criteria which included reservation in favour of the S.C., S.T and MSEs. At Clause 1.11, it laid down the process of evaluation of tenders. At clause 1.12 (c) it was made clear that the tenderer's offer complete in all respect must be submitted on or before the due date of closing of the tender in line with the instructions given. As per Clause 1.12(d), claims and objections due to ignorance of existing conditions or inadequacy of information would not be considered after submission of the bid and during the implementation. Further as per Clause 1.12 (e) it was made clear that the tenderer shall give an undertaking on their letter head that the content of the bidding document has not been altered or modified and any change in the bid documents or conditional bid is liable to be summarily rejected. In the "Instructions to Tenderers for participation in ETendering" under Annexure-2, it was made clear that no bids should be submitted after the last date and time of submission has reached and if the tenderer intended to revise the bid already submitted, they may change or revise the same on or before the last
The authority issuing the tender has discretion in interpreting and enforcing tender requirements, and unless there is evidence of illegality, courts should exercise restraint in interfering with con....
The rejection of a bid in a tender process should be based on merit consideration and qualification for allocation, and parties must plead and produce sufficient material to substantiate their case.
The court upheld that adherence to tender guidelines by public entities is essential, and allegations of impropriety must be substantiated for judicial intervention.
If two views are possible the Court should not impose the other view in the instant case.
Strict adherence to tender requirements, particularly for essential documents like NOCs, is mandated for eligibility, with judicial restraint applied in reviewing tender decisions.
Compliance with specific pre-qualification criteria and terms and conditions of a tender notice is crucial for the acceptance of a bid.
Tender rejection upheld as petitioner failed to provide sufficient proof of machinery ownership as mandated, highlighting strict adherence to bid requirements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.