Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Paritosh Services Agency – Appellant
Versus
Notified Area Council, Remuna, Balasore – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges against tender conditions must be timely. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. overview of the tender process and eligibility. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. authority's discretion on tender terms requires restraint. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. judicial interference in tender terms is limited. (Para 12) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed without costs. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The petitioner after participating in the tender process and having weeded out at the final stage of awarding the contract, the challenge is made to Clause-(e) of the financial bid providing for fair lottery process in the event of quoting the same price by multiple bidders.
2. The writ petition running into several pages is reflective of the contention that such clause is tailored to suit a particular intending bidder depriving the others and, therefore, should be regarded to have been tainted with bias and arbitrariness.
3. At the very outset, a seminal issue was raised as to whether a bidder, who participated in the tender with open eyes can take a rebound and challenge any or more of the conditions incorporated in the tender document, more particularly, in relation to an eligibility criterion and the
A tender participant cannot challenge its terms post-participation unless significant evidence of unfairness or bias is established, affirming the principle of contractual freedom in public bidding.
Point of Law : A tender process is set aside by courts only in exceptional circumstances and certainly not because the terms of the tender do not suit an individual prospective bidder.
Judicial review of tenders limited to arbitrariness or malafide; eligibility conditions upheld if public interest served with multiple qualified bidders; bid time reduction valid with approval; ineli....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; unsuccessful bidders cannot later challenge tender conditions they participated under.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria for tenders, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
The main legal point established is the authority of the World Bank and monitoring agencies in setting eligibility criteria for projects, as well as the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited to preventing arbitrariness; authorities have discretion in setting conditions based on project requirements.
The Court upheld the Corporation's authority to impose pre-qualification criteria and found that it did not amount to blacklisting the petitioner.
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
