Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manish Kumar, D. K. Upadhyaya, JJ.
Moksh Innovations Inc.Thru Senior Manager Kishan Singh Mehta - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Samaj Kalyan Lko & Ors. - Respondent
MISC. BENCH No. - 14199 of 2020
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Rejecting technical bid – Having failed in its bid to get the contract for the work of Supply and Installation of Way Finding and Traffic Enforcement Solution at Naimisharanya, District-Sitapur, these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioner-firm impressing upon the Court to judicially scrutinize the action on the part of the respondent-corporation in rejecting the technical bid offered by it.
Finding of the court: Renewal was prior to issuance of the NIT. So far as renewal of the registration of respondent no.9 is concerned, we may notice that firstly, the contract has not been awarded to the respondent no.9 and secondly, the registration was renewed on 21.07.2020 pursuant to a letter requesting for renewal of registration submitted on 26.05.2020. – So far as the other reasons, namely, reasons (B), (C) and (D) are concerned, the respondent-corporation in its counter affidavit has denied that the petitioner-firm submitted three years outdoor weathering test report of retro reflective sheeting from an Indian Lab from the manufacturers. – The respondent-corporation has further stated that though in lieu of outdoor weathering test report from Indian Lab the bidders were permitted to submit a tender certificate conforming to ASTM (D4956-09), however, the petitioner-firm did not submit this document as well. – It has been denied in the counter affidavit that none of the participants submitted Rebound Ability Report; rather it has been submitted that all other tenderers had uploaded their reports as per the terms and conditions and this report to be submitted, was an essential feature. – The respondents have also stated that the petitioner did not submit the sample for testing. – In respect of reasons (B), (C) and (D) as given for not accepting the technical bid submitted by the petitioner-firm, we only observe that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the experts. – Reasons (B), (C) and (D) clearly lie in technical realm and such technical issues and subjects can be better analyzed by the persons with the technical knowledge. – Grounds taken by the petitioner-firm assailing the reasons (B), (C) and (D) given by the respondent-corporation-firm not accepting the technical bid also fail.
Result: – Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Manish Kumar, JJ.
Having failed in its bid to get the contract for the work of Supply and Installation of Way Finding and Traffic Enforcement Solution at Naimisharanya, District-Sitapur, these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioner-firm impressing upon the Court to judicially scrutinize the action on the part of the respondent-corporation in rejecting the technical bid offered by it.
2. Heard Shri Desh Mitra Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri N. C. Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the U.P. State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) and Shri R. P. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.8-firm in whose favour the contract in question has been awarded.
3. The petitioner has prayed that the award of contract dated 18.08.2020 in favour of respondent no.8 be quashed and it be declared that technical bid offered by the petitioner-firm was fit and accordingly the petitioner-firm be also declared to be successful bidder in the financial bid as well.
4. The respondent-corporation issued Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as “NIT”) on 14.07.2020 for the work of Supply and Installation of Sinage Board at various locations for Naimisharanya Dham, District-Sitapur. The NIT was, however, cancelled and a fresh NIT was issued for the work of Supply and Installation of Way Finding and Traffic Enforcement Solution at Naimisharanya, District-Sitapur on 17.07.2020. Pursuant to the said NIT the petitioner-firm submitted its bid, however, the technical bit submitted by the petitioner-firm was rejected vide Technical Evaluation Report on 16.08.2020. The financial bid was thus opened on 16.08.2020 and after preparation of tender summary report the final outcome of bid evaluation was declared on 18.08.2020 whereby the contract for the work has been awarded to the respondent no.8.
5. The reasons indicated in the Technical Evaluation Report dated 16.08.2020 whereby the technical bid submitted by the petitioner-firm was rejected are as follows:
(A) Not registered in Nigam.
(B) As per clause no.2 of page no.4 bidder has not submitted the 3 years outdoor weathering test report of retro reflective sheeting from an Indian Lab from the manufacturers. Although clause no.3 page no.4 allows the bidders to submit alternate certificate conforming to ASTM (D4956-09) on artificial accelerated weathering from an Indian Lab in lieu of above outdoor weathering test report from Indian Lab along with the performance guarantee issued from nationalized bank given by retro reflective sheeting manufacturer. But bidders has not submitted these documents as well.
Apart from it other certificate as asked mentioned in clause under AFP and flexible median marker in NIT page no.5 are also not submitted by bidder. Hence this bid is not found suitable for this tender.
(C) Test report by Indian Govt. Lab for Rebound Ability not found.
(D) Test sample physically not submitted”
6. Challenging the said rejection of technical bid, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was made on untenable grounds. In respect of reason (A) “not registered in Nigam”, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this condition of registration of a contractor intending to participate in bid process is contrary to the aim and objective of global tender. It has further been argued that in view of general principle a selected firm is required to get it registered within 30 days. The reason for disqualifying the petitioner is against the natural law of justice and hence it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. Regarding reason (B), it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisite report was submitted by the petitioner online by uploa
Point of law : Under the scope of judicial review, the High Court could not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of the expert consultant on the issues of technical qualifications of a bidder when ....
The limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and the importance of upholding essential NIT requirements.
The court emphasized that strict compliance with tender conditions is essential and that arbitrary qualification despite disqualifications undermines the fairness required in the contracting process.
The court emphasized the principles of judicial restraint in administrative action, the lack of expertise of the court to correct administrative decisions, and the importance of public interest in te....
The court upheld the rejection of the technical bid based on the assessment of the bidder's capability to execute the work as per the tender document.
Judicial review of tender decisions is limited; compliance with stipulated conditions is mandatory, and non-compliance justifies rejection.
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
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
