Back
1989 Supreme(MP) 242
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
V. D. GYANI, A. G. QURESHI
PRECISION TECHNOFAB AND ENGINEERING CO., AHMEDABAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 1413 Of 1988
Decided On : 08/16/1989
G.M.CHAPHEKAR, R.R.WAGHMARE, WAGHMARE
In a tender evaluation process, the correction of an arithmetical mistake in a tender document by the government authorities is not a tampering or alteration of the document, but a bona fide correction in the public interest. The evaluation of tenders should be based on expert opinion and established engineering practices.
Headnote:
TENDER EVALUATION - ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MANUAL - ENGINEERING PRACTICES - EXPERT OPINION - JUDICIAL REVIEW: In a tender evaluation process, the court held that the correction of an arithmetical mistake in a tender document by the government authorities was not a tampering or alteration of the document, but a bona fide correction in the public interest. The court emphasized the importance of following settled engineering practices and expert opinion in evaluating tenders, and directed the government to finalize the tenders in accordance with the established norms and guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed challenging the tender evaluation process for a public works project. The petitioners, Precision Technofab and Engineering Company (Precision) and Om Metal and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (Om Metal), alleged that the government authorities had tampered with the tender documents and made arbitrary decisions in favor of one tenderer over the other.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government authorities had not tampered with the tender documents or acted arbitrarily in evaluating the tenders. The correction of the arithmetical mistake in the tender document of Precision was considered a bona fide correction in the public interest, and the government's decision to accept the lowest tender was based on expert opinion and established engineering practices.
Issues: 1. Whether the government authorities had tampered with the tender documents or acted arbitrarily in evaluating the tenders. 2. Whether the correction of the arithmetical mistake in the tender document of Precision was a bona fide correction or an alteration of the document. 3. Whether the government's decision to accept the lowest tender was based on expert opinion and established engineering practices.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the government authorities had not tampered with the tender documents or acted arbitrarily in evaluating the tenders. The correction of the arithmetical mistake in the tender document of Precision was considered a bona fide correction in the public interest, and the government's decision to accept the lowest tender was based on expert opinion and established engineering practices. 2. The court emphasized the importance of following settled engineering practices and expert opinion in evaluating tenders, and directed the government to finalize the tenders in accordance with the established norms and guidelines.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions and directed the government to finalize the tenders in accordance with the established engineering practices and expert opinion.
( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. P. No. 1413 of 1988 and M. P. 847 of 1989, as the points of facts and law to be decided in these petitions are identical. Petition No. 1413 of 88 has been filed by Precision Technofab and Engineering Company, (hereinafter called 'precision') and Petition No. 847 of 1989 has been filed by Om Metal and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'om Metal' ).
( 2 ) THE facts leading to these petitions in short are that the Government of M. P. in the Public Health Department resolved to embark upon the Gambhir Water Supply Project, Ujjain and consequently a project was prepared by the Public Health Department of the Government of M. P. After the preparation of the project, the Executive Engineer, Project Division, Ujjain published a notice inviting tenders dated 1-6-87. The tender notice was published in important newspapers of India calling upon the registered contractors of Category S-V and other concerns of experience and reputed registered with the Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Bhopal to submit tenders in the manner prescribed. In response to the aforesaid invitation, the petitioners in both these writ petitions and four others filed their tenders. The tenders were processed in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh P. W. D. Manual. However, the tenders could not be finalised and, therefore, a call was given to the Contractors to attend the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Health Department, Bhopal on 24-10-88 for negotiation to offer revised bids, to reduce the value of the bid and to extend the validity period along with confirming the other conditions of the notice inviting tenders.
( 3 ) THE Precision aggrieved by the order of the Chief Engineer inviting contractors for negotiation filed M. P. No. 1183 of 88 wherein a prayer was made to quash letter dated 4-10-88 inviting contractors for negotiation on 24-10-1988. The petitioner Om Metal was not made a party in that petition. Therefore it made an application for intervention. In that petition the grievance of the Precision was that although their tender was the lowest, still the contract was not given to them; instead, all the contractors were called for negotiation. This Court while deciding M. P. No. 1183 of 1988, vide order dated 4-11-88 held that the invitation to tenderers for negotiation is not in consonance with the P. W. Works Manual. Therefore, the order of the Chief Engineer, inviting tenderers for negotiation was quashed and the State was directed to consider the offers received by them on their respective merits.
( 4 ) AFTER the passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, the State considered all the tenders. Thereafter on 25-11-88 the Government rejected all the tenders on the basis of the recommendations of an Expert Committee (filed as Annexure-R/11) in M. P. No. 1413 of 88) wherein the Engineer-in-Chief, the Chief Engineer-I, the Chief Engineer (Monitoring), the Chief Engineer-III, the Chief Accounts and Administrative Officer and the Executive Engineer (Design) considered the merits of the tenders. When the Committee tried to evaluate the price bids quoted by various tenders, they found that it was not possible to evaluate the tenders to arrive at the total cost of the project to be paid as per the tenders due to uncertainty about MODVAT, variation in taxes and variation in tax benefits to different units. Accordingly fresh tenders were invited for the above project. Aggrieved by the aforesaid second notice inviting tenders the Precision filed Writ Petn. No. 1413 of 83 against the State and its Officers making grievance against the rejection of the earlier tenders. According to them the earlier tenders were to be finalised and no second call should have been given. In that petition a show cause notice was given to the State as to why the petition be not admitted and the Court passed an interim order on the application seeking ad interim writ that all t
