Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar, JJ.
M/s Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 15519 of 2023
Decided On : 12-10-2023
TENDER - BID EVALUATION - [M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur v. Sky Power South-East Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 (2) SCC 703] - The court discussed the scope of judicial review of an action by the State in matters arising from a contract, emphasizing the need for the decision to be based on a principle and not arbitrary. It highlighted the importance of good faith, reasonable rationale, and non-application of mind in determining arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the tender proceedings for expansion and beautification of a road, alleging malafide and manipulation of bid evaluation process. The petitioner's bid was initially declared 'responsive' but later deemed 'non-responsive' by the Tender Evaluating Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's allegations baseless, stating that the bid remained 'non-responsive' on eleven counts after reconsideration. It dismissed claims of document tampering and malafide, and upheld the decision to award the tender to another bidder.
Issues: Allegations of bid manipulation, malafide, and document tampering; challenge to the 'non-responsive' status of the petitioner's bid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that tender conditions are a policy decision and are not open to judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by malice. It highlighted the need for the State to act within the bounds of reasonableness and upheld the principle of judicial restraint in administrative action.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no evidence of arbitrariness, malafide, or violation of natural justice in the tender proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Prashant Kumar, J.
1. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vibhu Rai, Abhinav Gaur and Ami Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ajit Sinha along with Mr. Anurag Khanna assisted by Ms. Devika Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
(ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the decision dated 25.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 6 declaring the result of financial bids.
(iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to constituted a High Level Committee to enquire into the fraud committed anyhow to get the contract awarded to respondent no. 10 by manipulating the data on Prahari website.”
3. The respondent no. 5 had issued an advertisement/notice inviting tenders on 15.12.2022 for expansion and beautification of Ahraura Madihan Lalganj Road which is a State Highway No. 150 in District-Mirzapur. This project was to be completed within a period of 18 months. The bids so invited were to be submitted on the official website between 31.01.2023 to 19.01.2023. It was provided in the Notice Inviting Tender [(for short “NIT”)] that the technical evaluation of bids will be done using “Prahari” Software having URL-http:// wms.uppwd.gov.in/prahari/. The bidders were supposed to upload all kinds of information and documents at Prahari Software. After uploading all kinds of information and documents on the http://etender.up.nic.in website, the bidders were supposed to download the technical sheet and uploaded the scanned copy of the technical sheet on e-tender portal i.e. http://etender.up.nic.in.
4. The petitioner claims that he had duly submitted its technical bid online on 21.01.2023 on Prahari website and the technical sheet was then downloaded and re-uploaded on the e-tender website i.e. http://etender.up.nic.in.
5. The result of the analysis of technical bids and documents in the said bid on the Prahari website were declared online on 23.01.2023 in which, the technical bid of the petitioner was declared as “responsive” in all respects.
6. Thereafter, all of the bidders were granted 72 hours to submit their objections, if any, on the technical bids and documents submitted on Prahari website by other bidders. Various objections were raised by the other bidders on the veracity & authenticity of documents uploaded by the petitioner.
7. The Tender Evaluating Committee after evaluating the objections, declared the bid of of respondent no. 10 as “responsive” and the bid of the petitioner as “non-responsive” on the ground that there were certain discrepancies in respect of the invoices provided by the petitioner. It is worthwhile to mention that out of eight bidders, only bid of two bidders were found to be “responsive”. The petitioner objected to the decision of the Tender Evaluating Committee. He submitted that earlier his bid was “responsive” on the Prahari App but the Tender Evaluating Committee had malafidely declared as “non-responsive”.
8. An allegation of mala fide was made by the petitioner on the ground that, in the Tender Evaluating Committee, respondent no. 9 who was the Superintending Engineer and was handling the tender evaluation, had been promoted, so the Engineer-in-Chief vide letter dated 01.03.2023 requested respondent no. 9 to handover the entire tender evaluating work to Shri Yogendra Singh who was then supposed to complete the tender process on his behalf. It is further alleged that in spite of the direction of the Engineer-in-Chief to hand over the tender process to Yogendra Singh,
AI
The court upheld the principle of judicial restraint in administrative action and emphasized the need for the State to act within the bounds of reasonableness in tender matters.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, the importance of punctilious and rigid enforcement of tender terms, and the uniform application of tender requirements to....
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.
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
