The main legal point established in the judgment is that courts will not interfere in the award of contracts if the decision is bona fide and in the public interest, even if procedural errors or prejudice to a tenderer are made out.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to allot the tender to the petitioner being the successful bidder as per the tender summary report prepared by the department. Further, a prayer has been made to refrain respondent No.2 from allotting the tender to respondent No.4.

2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Respondent No.2 floated a tender for providing manpower services on the contract basis under outsourcing policy and vide advertisement, Annexure P-1, invited tender online for providing the manpower services of Clerk, Computer Operator, Steno Typist, Daftri, Gunman and Peon for a period of one year. As per the terms and conditions, Annexure P-2, the closing date for submitting the technical and financial bid along with the requisite documents and opening date of tender was 28.6.2017 at 12.30 PM. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted its technical and financial bid online along with the requisite documents including the Licence under the Private Security Regulation Act, 2005 (in short “2005 Act”). In all, the total thirteen parties including the petitioner and respondent No.4 had applied for the said tender. As per Annexure P-3, the technical bid of the petitioner had secured 204 marks whereas respondent No.4 had secured 208 marks but respondent No.4 was not having the licence under the 2005 Act. The petitioner and other parties vide letter, Annexure P-4 and e-mail dated 19.7.2017 (Annexure P-5) informed respondent No.2 that respondent No.4 was not having the licence under the 2005 Act. As per the agenda and decision dated 19.7.2017 (Annexure P-6), it was resolved that the tender be allotted to respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 was not the successful bidder as per the tender summary report prepared by respondent No.2. As per the licence report dated 24.7.2017 (Annexure P-7), respondent No.4 was not having the licence under the 2005 Act which was mandatory as per the terms and condition No.5 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner was having the experience since 1997 which is clear from the experience certificate dated 3.9.2001 (Annexure P-8). The Director of respondent No.3 wrote a letter dated 19.7.2017 (Annexure P-9) to respondent No.1 that there was a lacuna in issuance of the tender as the same was allotted without proper technical bid report, without merit and the tender was issued to a company who was not having the licence under the 2005 Act. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

4. A perusal of narration of facts shows that respondent No.2 floated a tender for providing manpower services on contract basis under outsourcing policy and vide advertisement, Annexure P-1, invited tender online for providing the manpower services of Clerk, Computer Operator, Steno Typist, Daftri, Gunman and Peon for a period of one year. The thirteen agencies including the petitioner and respondent No.4 had applied for the said tender. As per Annexure P-3, the technical bid of the petitioner had secured 204 marks whereas respondent No.4 had secured 208 marks. As per the agenda and decision dated 19.7.2017 (Annexure P-6), it was resolved that the tender be allotted to respondent No.4. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.4 did not have licence under 2005 Act and, therefore, was ineligible. Support was drawn from Annexure P-9 appended along with the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to substantiate that condition No.5 of the tender notice was not complied with as respondent No.4 did not have licence under the 2005 Act