Back
2018 Supreme(Manipur) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
KH. NOBIN SINGH, J.
Chongtham Jayantakumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 98 of 2018
Decided On : 21-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A. Mohendro, Advocate
For the Respondents:Y. Nirmolchand, Advocate, N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate and Y. Ashang, Govt. Advocate
The court's power of judicial review of administrative action is limited, and the State can refuse the lowest or any other tender, provided it tries to get the best person or quotation, and the power to choose should not be exercised for any collateral purpose or in infringement of Article 14.
Headnote:
TENDER - Transportation of Urea Fertilizer - [Tender Committee, Notification dated 19-12-2017, Corrigendum on Invitation of Bid dated 04-01-2018, e-procurement/Tender Portal, BOQ, NIT, Tender Committee, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East Frontier Railway, Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust] - The court discussed the principles of a valid tender, the limitations of judicial review in administrative action, and the duty of the State to act fairly in awarding contracts. It emphasized that the State can refuse the lowest or any other tender, provided it tries to get the best person or quotation, and the power to choose should not be exercised for any collateral purpose or in infringement of Article 14. The court also highlighted that the submission of a tender is no more than making an offer, and the bidders cannot insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or the lowest. The court's power of judicial review of administrative action is limited to the extent indicated in the decisions mentioned. The court dismissed the writ petition with the direction that the Tender Committee should minutely examine the rate quoted by the private respondent before accepting it, considering various factors and recording its reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a fresh tender for the transportation of Urea Fertilizer, alleging irregularities in the tender process conducted by the Department of Agriculture, Manipur. The petitioner claimed that the Department delayed uploading the tender summary report, adopted different yardsticks in computing the tender rate, and chose the bidder of their choice before the tender result was out, leading to favoritism, nepotism, and lack of transparency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in uploading the bids did not prejudice the rights of the petitioner, and there was no specific allegation of non-observance of the procedure prescribed in law or malafide against any particular officer or member of the tender committee. The court also noted that the rate quoted by the private respondent was found to be the lowest and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Issues: Alleged irregularities in the tender process, delay in uploading the tender summary report, adoption of different yardsticks in computing the tender rate, favoritism, nepotism, and lack of transparency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's power of judicial review of administrative action is limited, and in the absence of any allegation of malafide or procedural lapse, the court should be slow in interfering with the process of tender. The State can refuse the lowest or any other tender, provided it tries to get the best person or quotation, and the power to choose should not be exercised for any collateral purpose or in infringement of Article 14. The submission of a tender is no more than making an offer, and the bidders cannot insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or the lowest.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with the direction that the Tender Committee should minutely examine the rate quoted by the private respondent before accepting it, considering various factors and recording its reasons.
JUDGMENT :
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Y. Nirmolchand, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2; Shri N. Jotendro, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1.
2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh tender with respect to the work being AGM-II/137(FERT)/Pt.-IV for transportation of Urea Fertilizer (15,000 MT) from Dimapur Rakepoint to Imphal and Jiribam Rakepoint to Imphal.
3.1 The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the Government of Manipur through the Department of Agriculture, issued a Notification dated 19-12-2017 inviting quotations in two bids system (Technical & Price Bid) from interesting Transport Firms/Agencies for transportation of Urea Fertilizer (15,000 MT) from Dimapur Rakepoint to Imphal and Jiribam Rakepoint to Imphal. The petitioner being an interested Transport Agency, was prepared to submit his tender but before he could do so, the State Government issued a “Corrigendum on Invitation of Bid” dated 04-01-2018 informing that the invitation was re-uploaded due to some technical reason and the last date of submission and opening of bids were thereby extended as detailed therein.
3.2 The petitioner along with five other Transport Agencies/Contractors applied for the work in the e-procurement/Tender Portal but to his utter shock and surprise, nothing was uploaded in the tender portal either on 12-01-2018 or on 15-01-2018 and the opening of technical and financial bids was uploaded only on 16-01-2018 for the reasons best known to the State Government. The concerned authority of the Department of Agriculture delayed the uploading of the tender summary report by three days thereby creating rooms for any alteration and modification to be made in the said e-tender. Being aggrieved by such deceitful act of the Department of Agriculture, the petitioner went to the office of the Department of Agriculture to enquire into the matter and it was found that there was a document purporting to be the summary of the BOQ (Bill of Quantity) in which the private respondent was already specified as L1 (Lowest Bidder), a copy of which was handed over to the petitioner by it but the same is not yet uploaded in the e-procurement/tender portal for the reason best known to them.
3.3 According to the petitioner, on perusal of the said summary of the BOQ, it was found that the Department had adopted different yardsticks while computing the rate of tender and being aggrieved by it, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17-01-2018 requesting for re-tender. The private respondent was shown to be the lowest bidder but the amount quoted by him was not only unreasonable but also practically impossible and since the petitioner felt that the authority had no intention of conducting re-tender, he issued a legal notice dated 18-01-2018 through his counsel highlighting the anomalies and defects in the e-tender process and to conduct a fresh tender. In reply thereto, the Director of Agriculture, Manipur addressed a letter dated 30-01-2018 stating that there was no irregularity or lapses in the process of tender for transportation of Urea Fertilizer.
3.4 Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that the State Government delayed in uploading the summary of tender thereby deviating from the dates as already specified in the “Corrigendum of Invitation of Bid” dated 04-01-2018; that the Department of Agriculture adopted different yardstick in computing the rate of tender; that the Department of Agriculture resorted to choosing bidder of their choice even before the result of the tender was out thereby making the NIT pointless and th
