The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to intervene in the tender process if it is found to be contrary to the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge has been made by the petitioner-firm to the tender process conducted by the Construction and Design Services, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban) Lucknow for execution of work relating to rehabilitation, cleaning and maintenance work of sewer line at Bachcha Park to Hapur Road, Meerut.

2. Heard Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Akshat Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.1 to 4, Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 5 and Ms. Kaviya Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 6 and perused the records available before us on this writ petition.

3. For execution of the aforesaid work, a tender notice dated 01.11.2021 was issued inviting e-tender. As per the said tender notice, the technical bid was to be opened first on due date and time and the time and date of financial bid of those contractors who qualified the technical bid was to be opened at a later date.

4. Pursuant to the tender notice dated 01.11.2021, the petitioner which is a proprietorship firm and is said to be engaged in the business of government contracts of cleaning and maintenance of sewer line for past 18 years submitted its bid along with other bidders. The technical bids of the participants, including that of the petitioner, were opened on 16.11.2021, however, by means of an Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2021 it was communicated that out of three bidders, technical bid of respondent nos.5 and 6 were found to be eligible and accordingly the date for opening of financial bid was fixed to be 02.12.2021. The Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2021 which has been annexed as annexure 2 to the writ petition does not disclose any reason as to why the technical bid of the petitioner was not declared eligible. It only mentions that the technical bid of two bidders, that is, those of respondent nos.5 and 6 were found to be eligible.

5. Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner-firm has submitted that as per the information available on the E-portal of the respondent-organization, it was only mentioned that technical bid submitted by the petitioner did not qualify in technical evaluation as per the NIT (Notice for Invitation of e-Tender). The tender summary report is available at page 201 as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. From perusal of this report what we find is that as against the technical bid submitted by the respondent nos.5 and 6 “qualified in technical bid evaluation” is written whereas as against the petitioner-firm “not qualified in technical evaluation from the NIT” is written. Neither the said tender summary report, nor the office memorandum dated 30.11.2021 discloses any reason as to why the technical bid of the petitioner-firm was not found eligible.

6. The petitioner is said to have made certain objections vide letters dated 01.12.2021 and 03.12.2021 against disqualification of its technical bid to the respondent-organization, however, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm, the objections raised by the petitioner-firm were not taken into account; neither any decision was taken thereon. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner that in fact the respondent nos.5 and 6 whose technical bids were accepted also did not qualify inasmuch as they did not fulfill the tender conditions. It has, thus, been argued that the impugned action on the part of the respondent-organization in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner and thereafter declaring the technical bid of the respondent nos.5 and 6 eligible is completely illegal and arbitrary.

7. Further submission made by the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner is that the facts of the case clearly establish that the fairness which is expected in processing the tender has not been followed in the insta