IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla, JJ.
Dynamic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
WRIT- C NO. 22963 OF 2024, WRIT- C NO. 20023 OF 2024
Decided On : 06-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Tender process - Petitioners challenged the tender process for supply of Sal wood sleepers for Maha Kumbh Mela, alleging non-compliance with mandatory conditions of the e-bid document - Court held that the decision-making process was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and the petitioners failed to establish any mala fide action by the authorities. (Paras 20 and 21)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Courts should exercise restraint in tender matters and not interfere unless the decision-making process is arbitrary, discriminatory, or biased. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash the tender process for supply of Sal wood sleepers, alleging that the lead member of the successful consortium did not meet the eligibility criteria and that mandatory physical inspections were not conducted.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides in the actions of the authorities and upheld the tender process.
Issues: The main issues were the eligibility of the lead member of the consortium and the necessity of physical inspections as per the tender document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authorities acted within their discretion and that the petitioners did not demonstrate any grounds for judicial intervention.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
1. The instant connected petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Dynamic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner in Writ-C No. 22963 of 2024) and M/s Bengal Wood & Allied Products (Petitioner in Writ-C No. 20023 of 2024) seeking quashing of the entire tender process held in pursuance of e-bid tender document dated May 28, 2024 issued by Superintending Engineer, PWD, Prayagraj Circle, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2). The Petitioners have further prayed for some other numerous reliefs in accordance with their satisfaction through their respective petitions.
FACTS
2. Factual matrix of the present case is delineated below:
(b) On May 28, 2024, the Sal Sleeper Purchase Committee through the Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Prayagraj Zone, Prayagraj issued an e-bid document wherein it invited applications from interested Government institutions/corporations/firms/contractors/business entities either individually or as joint venture/consortium for supply of sal wood sleeper and edgings for construction of Pontoon bridges in the Maha Kumbh Mela, 2025 that was to be held in the city of Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
(c) As per the bid document, the process of selection consists of two stages namely, technical bid and financial bid. The financial bids would be open at a subsequent stage for only those bidders, who were successful in the technical bid.
(d) The date of commencement of the bidding process was fixed as May 27, 2024 and the last date of submission of the bidding documents was fixed as June 11, 2024 and thereafter, the technical bids were to be opened on the same day itself. However, on May 27, 2024, the Competent Authority issued a corrigendum, whereby the last date for the opening of the technical bid was extended to June 12, 2024.
(e) The petitioner in Writ-C No. 22963 of 2024 submitted its technical as well as financial bid at the rate of Rs.2,26,900 per cubic meter for the supply of Sal wood sleeper and edgings on June 12, 2024 and was found eligible in the technical bid. Out of total 12 bidders who submitted their technical bids, 11 bidders (including petitioner) were found to be qualified for the financial bid which was opened on June 15, 2024 wherein the contract was granted in favor of 5 bidders at the rate of Rs.1,58,000/- per cubic meter who were designated as L-1 to L-5 because L-2 to L-5 agreed to supply the required product at the same rate quoted by the L-1 bidder (a consortium of 3 entities namely Dhoramnath Traders, Shraddha Timber Stores and Vasant Timber Mart) that is at the rate of Rs.1,58,000/-. The Petitioner was placed at L-10 in the bidding process.
(f) On June 28, 2024, after the completion of the bidding process, the Letter of Award (‘LoA’) was granted in favor of 5 bidders who were placed at L-1 to L-5 in the financial bids to supply Sal wood sleepers and edgings at Maha Kumbh Mela, 2025.
(g) Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved by the conferring of LoA to the L-1 to L-5 without allegedly following mandatory condition of the e-bid document dated May 28, 2024 has approached this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs through the present Writ Petitions.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
3. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions:
(ii) Dhoramnat
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. (2016)16 SCC 818
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548
Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) (2016) 8 SCC 622
Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. (2004) 4 SCC 19
Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or biased.
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
Judicial review of tender conditions is restricted to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, reinforcing that the authority determining eligibility criteria has the discretion and expertise in c....
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
Point of Law : Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts or the Tender Scrutiny Committee, which has scrutinized and found the 3rd respondent to be responsive and had to be awarded the contract....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides; decisions should reflect fair competition and not accommodate late submissions of corrected bids....
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....
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.