IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.
M/s S.S. Consultancy, (Out Sourcing, Manpower supply and Security Services) and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical and Family Welfare – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 29592 of 2022
Decided On : 21-11-2022
TENDER - AWARD OF WORK - [1.1.3, 1.1.11, 1.1.12, 4.2, 4.2.1] - The court set aside the award of work due to non-compliance with tender conditions, specifically the failure to upload the experience certificate online as required, and emphasized the importance of adhering to the tender conditions without allowing for substantial compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the award of work to respondent No.5, alleging non-compliance with tender conditions and arbitrary exercise of discretion by the respondents. The respondents awarded the work to respondent No.5 despite their failure to upload the experience certificate online, as required by the tender conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents acted arbitrarily and exercised discretion not vested in them by declaring respondent No.5 as qualified, despite their failure to comply with the tender conditions. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with tender conditions and set aside the award of work to respondent No.5.
Issues: Non-compliance with tender conditions, arbitrary exercise of discretion by the respondents, and the importance of adhering to the tender conditions without allowing for substantial compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to upload the experience certificate online, as required by the tender conditions, amounted to non-compliance and set aside the award of work to respondent No.5. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the tender conditions without allowing for substantial compliance.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned proceedings were set aside, and the respondents were directed to process the tender submitted by the petitioner for awarding the subject work within three weeks.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in issuing proceedings No. RC No.GMC/IHFMS/2022-23, dated 27.06.2022 awarding the work of providing Integrated Hospital Facility Management Services in Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District, in the State of Telangana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject work’) in favour of respondent No.5 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 herein called for tenders for the ‘subject work’ through tender notice, dated 30.04.2022 and in response thereto the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein and another submitted their bids. After evaluation of the bids, the petitioner herein and respondent No.5 were found to be technically qualified for award of the work and after opening of the price bids, both the petitioner and respondent No.5 were found to have quoted the same price. In view of the same, in terms of tender condition, respondent No.5 herein is declared as successful bidder on the ground that the annual turnover of respondent No.5 is more than the turnover of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, respondent No.4 herein issued the impugned proceedings awarding the subject work to respondent No.5. Aggrieved by such award of work in favour of respondent No.5 herein, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the bids submitted by respondent No.5 herein are not incompliance with the conditions of tender document as respondent No.5 failed to upload the work experience certificate on online e-Procurement Market Place as required under clause 1.1.3 of Section (1) of bid document and any failure to upload the required documents on e-Procurement Market Place will entail in disqualification of such bidders and the bids submitted by respondent No.5 ought not have been declared as qualified technically by the respondents. It is further contended that though the bid submitted by respondent No.5 is not complying with the requirements of the tender documents, the respondents have erroneously and for extraneous considerations, awarded the work in favour of respondent No.5 detrimental to the interest of the petitioner herein. It is also further contended that in terms of clause 1.1.3 read with 1.1.11, no offline submission of documents would be considered and the bids that are submitted devoid of proper documents or adequate information are liable to be rejected. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in the instance case the bid of respondent No.5 though was defective the same was not in compliance with the tender conditions, the respondent No.2 considered it erroneously and illegally.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health submitted that respondent No.5 has submitted bid document by uploading the same on online e-Procurement Market Place except the work experience certificate and that the said work experience certificate was submitted by respondent No.5 offline. It is further submitted that having taken note of the fact that respondent No.5 failed to upload the experience certificate on online and after having received the same offline, respondent Nos.2 and 4 stated to have submitted a detailed report before respondent No.3 herein and as per the decision of respondent No.3 herein, the bid of respondent No.5 was considered and accordingly, the work was awarded in favour of respondent No.5. It is further submitted by learned Government Pleader that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 12.09.2022, the previous contractor was asked to undertake to provide the services at Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad ti
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Others
G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Others
Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand Prashar & others
Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Others
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
AI
Strict compliance with tender conditions is essential, and deviations from the tender conditions cannot be accepted, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the tender conditions without allowing f....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
The person claiming justice and equity must come with clean hands.
Government contract – Tender - The judicial review on State administrative activities is limited inasmuch as the Constitutional Courts do not sit on appeal as to whether the decision is good and soun....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with essential conditions in a tender, and the need for substantial compliance with the broader objectives of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to intervene in the tender process if it is found to be contrary to the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness as enshr....
The interpretation of tender conditions by the respondents is binding, and the petitioner's acceptance of the terms and conditions with full knowledge precludes subsequent challenges.
The State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically in matters of tender.
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.