Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. C. Sharma and Virender Singh, JJ.
Air Perfection (M/s.) v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 12474 of 2019; Decided on 18.7.2019
Pushyamitra Bhargava for petitioner; S. K. Purohit, Government Advocate for respondent/State; Manoj Munshi for respondent No. 2.
Headnote:
(1) Tender -- Government/administrative body functioning in administrative sphere has to act in fair and transparent manner, not affected by bias or actuated by mala fide -- petitioner not able to establish bias or mala fide in process -- merely because condition is not suiting petitioner, it cannot be said that respondents acted in unfair manner in order to favour someone. (1994) 6 SCC 651 distinguished. [Para 22]
(2) Tender -- conditions imposed in notice inviting tender (NIT) reasonable -- introduced in NIT keeping in view specialized nature of work and to assure procurement of quality -- cannot be said that respondents violated recognized norms -- nor can it be said that terms and conditions of tender are unreasonable and arbitrary. (2001) 8 SCC 491 distinguished. [Para 23]
(3) Tender -- no evidence on record to establish that authorities abused power vested in them or there was mala fide exercise of power -- respondents are the best judge to frame terms and conditions of NIT. (2000) 5 SCC 287 followed. (2009) 6 SCC 171, AIR 1989 SC 458, 2006 (1) JLJ 303 (SC) and AIR 1989 SC 157 referred to. [Para 24]
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 20 -- tender -- relates to specialized job -- tender document prepared after consulting specialist on subject -- cannot be said that respondents violated guidelines issued by Central Vigilance Commission -- by no stretch of imagination, action of respondents can be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 20 of Constitution -- no reason to hold that terms and conditions of NIT are arbitrary and illegal -- question of permitting petitioner to participate in process does not arise if it does not fulfill terms and conditions as per NIT. (2012) 8 SCC 216 followed. (2018) 12 SCC 790 distinguished. [Paras 25 & 26]
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of judicial scrutiny -- tender -- Government and their undertakings do have a free hand in setting terms of a tender -- unless terms and conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, scope of interference by Courts does not arise -- NIT issued upon recommendation of Expert Committee -- terms and conditions not unreasonable -- petitioner failed to establish that criteria adopted by respondents is contrary to public interest, discriminatory or unreasonable -- question of interference does not arise. (2012) 8 SCC 216, (2016) 16 SCC 818, (2017) 4 SCC 269, (1994) 6 SCC 651, (2000) 5 SCC 287 and (2003) 3 SCC 186 followed. (2018) 12 SCC 790 distinguished. [Paras 26, 32 & 33]
¼1½ fufonk & ç'kklfud {ks= esa —R; djrs gq, 'kklu@ç'kklfud fudk; dks i{kikr ls çHkkfor vFkok vln~Hkko ls çsfjr ugha gksrs gq,] fu"i{k vkSj ikjn'khZ jhfr esa dk;Z djuk gksrk gS & ;kph çfØ;k esa i{kikr vFkok vln~Hkko LFkkfir ugha dj ldk & ek= blfy, fd 'krZ ;kph ds vuq:i ugha gS] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd çR;FkhZx.k us fdlh ij —ik djus ds fy, vuqfpr jhfr esa dk;Z fd;kA ¼1994½ 6 ,l lh lh 651 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 22½
¼2½ fufonk & fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk ¼,u vkb Vh½ esa vf/kjksfir 'krsZ ;qfDr;qDr & dk;Z dh fof'k"V ç—fr –f"V esa j[krs gq, rFkk xq.koÙkk dh mikfIr fuf'pr djus ds fy, ,u vkb Vh esa çfo"V dh xbZ & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd çR;FkhZx.k us ekU; ekudksa dk vfrØe.k fd;k & u gh ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd fufonk ds fuca/ku rFkk 'krsZ v;qfDr;qDr vkSj euekus gSaA ¼2001½ 8 ,l lh lh 491 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 23½
¼3½ fufonk & ;g LFkkfir djus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dqN ugha fd çkfèkdkfj;ksa us muesa fufgr 'kfDr dk nq:i;ksx fd;k vFkok 'kfDr dk vln~Hkkfod ç;ksx gqvk & ,u vkb Vh ds fuca/ku rFkk 'krsZ fojfpr djus gsrq çR;FkhZx.k loZJs"B fu.kkZ;d gSaA ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 287 vuqlfjrA ¼2009½ 6 ,l lh lh 171] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 458] 2006 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 303 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ rFkk , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 157 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 24½
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 14] 19¼1½¼N½ rFkk 20 & fufonk & fo'ks"kKh; dk;Z ls lacaf/kr & fo"k; ds fo'ks"kK ls ijke'kZ ds i'pkr~ fufonk nLrkost rS;kj fd;k x;k & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd çR;FkhZx.k us dsaæh; lrdZrk vk;ksx }kjk tkjh ekxZn'kZu dk vfrØe.k fd;k & dYiuk dh fdlh Hkh mM+ku ls çR;FkhZx.k ds —R; ls lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14] 19 ¼1½¼N½ rFkk 20 dk vfrØe.k ugha dgk tk ldrk & ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha fd ,u vkb Vh ds fuca/ku rFkk 'krsaZ euekus vkSj voS/k gSa & ,u vkb Vh ds vuqlkj fuca/ku rFkk 'krsZ iwjh ugha gksrh gksa rks ;kph dks çfØ;k esa Hkkx ysus dh vuqKk nsus dk ç'u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrkA ¼2012½ 8 ,l lh lh 216 vuqlfjrA ¼2018½ 12 ,l lh lh 790 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 26½
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & U;kf;d laoh{kk dh O;kfIr & fufonk & ljdkj rFkk mlds m|eksa dks fufonk ds fuca/ku fu;r djus dk Lokraa=~; vo'; gksrk gS & fuca/ku rFkk 'krsZ euekuh] foHksndkjh] vln~Hkkfod vFkok i{kikr ls çsfjr ugha gksa rc rd U;k;ky;ksa ds gLr{ksi dk ç'u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrk & fo'ks"kK lfefr dh flQkfj'kksa ij ,u vkb Vh tkjh dh xbZ & fuca/ku rFkk 'krsZ v;qfDr;qDr ugha & ;kph ;g LFkkfir djus esa vlQy fd çR;FkhZx.k }kjk vaxh—r ekunaM yksd fgr ds çfrdwy] foHksndkjh vFkok v;qfDr;qDr & gLr{ksi dk ç'u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrkA ¼2012½ 8 ,l lh lh 216] ¼2016½ 16 ,l lh lh 818] ¼2017½ 4 ,l lh lh 269] ¼1994½ 6 ,l lh lh 651] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 287 rFkk ¼2003½ 3 ,l lh lh 186 vuqlfjrA ¼2018½ 12 ,l lh lh 790 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 26- 32 ,oa 33½
ORDER
1. The petitioner before this Court, a partnership firm through its partner Vikas Nema, has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred as N.I.T.) i.e. N.I.T. No. 03/PMAY/2019-20 for Supply, Installation, Testing, Commissioning and Maintenance of Lifts including Allied Works under PMAY at Bhuritekri, Dudhiya Devguradiya, Bada, Bangerda, Budhaniya and Badabangerda extension, M.P.
2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner / Firm fulfills all the eligibility conditions in the N.I.T. except Clause-2 and 3. Clause-2 provides for minimum annual turn over of Rs. 100.00 crores and Clause-3 provides that a bidder should have installed 1000 lifts in the last three years.
3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, one more condition has been introduced by the respondents, which provides that bidder should have a manufacturing unit. The petitioner's contention is that the Central Vigilance Commission has issued guidelines dated 17.12.2002 in respect of the process of issuing N.I.T., acceptance of N.I.T. and award of contract. It has further been contended that the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission dated 17.12.2002 are binding upon the respondents.
4. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the aforesaid guidelines and his contention is that as per the guidelines, the annual financial turn over of the last three years should not exceed 30% of the estimated cost of the contract and in those circumstances, the petitioner grievance is that the terms and conditions prescribed in the N.I.T. on account of which, the petitioner is being ousted, are unreasonable and illegal and deserves to be quashed.
5. The petitioner has placed reliance upon several judgments delivered in the cases of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651, Union of India v. Dinesh Enginnering Corporation, reported in 2001 (8) SCC 491, Meerut Development Auhtority v. Assn. of Management Studies, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 171, Subhash Kumar Lata v. R.C. Chhiba and another, reported in 1989 AIR 458, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2006 (1) JLJ 303 (SC) = 2006 (3) SCC 581 and Faish Choudhary v. D.G. Doordarshan reported in 1989 AIR 157 and has prayed for the following reliefs :
(1) Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of the authorities;
(2) Upon holding that the impugned eligibility conditions in Annexure CA Financial 1.II and 1.III of as defined in Pre-qualification Criteria of the NIT as malafide, arbitrary and illegal, issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction, quashing the same.
(3) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the objections raised by the petitioner.
(4) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to permit the petitioner to take part in the NIT proceedings.
(5) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner and its' bid for award of the Tender Contract.
(6) Award cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.
6. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is having vast experience in the matter of installation of lifts / elevators. The petitioner has also challenged the corrigendum No. 3 issued on 8.7.2019, which provides that the bidder should be an entity having their own manufacturing unit for manufacturing lifts. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Coastal Marine Construction and Engineering Limited v. Union of India and has prayed for quashment of the terms and conditions, which are coming in way of the petitioner.
7. A reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents have admitted the issuance of tender by them. The respondents have further stated that they have undertaken the construction of multi s
