IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
M/s. Annapurna Constructions – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Rep. by its Principal Secretary, New Delhi and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 34806 of 2023
Decided On : 15-04-2024
Tender - Disqualification of Bid - Indian Railway Standard General Conditions of Contract April 2022 - The court found the disqualification of the petitioner’s bid arbitrary and unjustified, emphasizing the need for fair treatment in public contracts as per Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a construction firm, submitted a tender for railway infrastructure work and was declared the lowest eligible bidder. However, the respondent disqualified the bid citing failure to meet technical eligibility criteria, leading the petitioner to challenge this decision in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner met the eligibility criteria as per the tender conditions and the Indian Railway Standard General Conditions of Contract. The disqualification was deemed arbitrary and intended to favor another bidder.
Issues: Whether the petitioner satisfied the technical eligibility criteria for the tender and if the disqualification was arbitrary and unjustified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that public authorities must act fairly and without discrimination in tender processes, and the petitioner was entitled to relief as the disqualification was arbitrary.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to accept the petitioner's tender.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr.N.V.Sumanth (M/s.Indus Law Firm), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Mr.G.Chandra Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition:
(b) It is further the case of the Petitioner that upon enquiry the Petitioner was informed that the Petitioner’s bid could not be accepted as the Petitioner did not satisfy the technical eligibility criteria which is extracted as under:
“The tenderer must have successfully completed or substantially completed any of the following during last 07 (seven) years, ending last day of month previous to the one in which tender is invited: Three similar works each costing not less than the amount equal to 30% of advertised value of the tender, or Two similar works each costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of advertised value of the tender, or One similar work each costing not less than the amount equal to 60% of advertised value of the tender. (b) (i) In case of composite works (e.g. works involving more than one distinct component, such as Civil Engineering works, S&T works, Electrical works, OHE works etc. and in the case of major bridges - substructure, superstructure etc.), tenderer must have successfully completed or substantially completed any of the following during last 07 (seven) years, ending last day of month previous to the one in which tender is invited: Three similar works each costing not less than the amount equal to 30% of advertised value of each component of tender, or Two similar works each costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of advertised value of each component of tender, or One similar work each costing not less than the amount equal to 60% of advertised value of each component of tender.”
(c) It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner submitted three separate experience certificates dated 08.11.2023, 10.05.2023, 02.06.2023 which clearly indi
Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M&N Publications Limited & Others
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Limited vs. State of West Bengal
Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
Public authorities must ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in tender processes, adhering to established eligibility criteria.
Tender - Tender conditions are required to be read as provided in the tender document and if there are two views or construction possible than the view of the authority interpreting the tender docume....
The court upheld the authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria for tenders, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
Fairness cannot be a one-way street. The fairness required of the Financial Corporations cannot be carried to the extent of disabling them from recovering what is due to them. While not insisting upo....
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
Essential tender eligibility criteria must be strictly complied with, and any deviation leads to arbitrary exercise of power, warranting judicial review.
Point of Law : An order which has not been brought on record in a writ petition cannot be set aside by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.
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.