Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 18642
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shri Anoop Trivedi, J
Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran (M/s.) v. State of U.P.
W. C. No. 15519 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Anoop Trivedi, Shri Vibhu Rai, Abhinav Gaur, Ami Tandon
For the Respondents: Shri Manish Goel, Mr. Ajit Sinha, Mr. Anurag Khanna, Ms. Devika Kapoor
Judicial review of tender decisions is confined to avoiding arbitrariness and ensuring fair procedures are followed by the evaluating authority, without substituting judicial opinions for administrative judgments.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Tender proceedings - Judicial review of administrative decisions regarding tenders is limited to ensure no arbitrariness or favoritism is present. The authority must provide a rationale in their proceedings to avoid such perceptions (Paras 24, 38).
(B) The Court emphasized that terms of invitation to tender are generally not subject to judicial scrutiny unless found to be arbitrarily discriminatory (Paras 27, 36).
(C) The petitioner alleged inaccuracies in the evaluation process leading to claims of mala fide against officials; however, evidence suggested that the committee acted within its mandate (Paras 22, 38).
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s bid was adjudged non-responsive on multiple grounds, and allegations of mala fide and inaccuracies were unsupported (Paras 20, 38).
Issues: Key issues included whether the evaluation of the tender process was fair and if the petitioner’s allegations of arbitrariness were substantiated (Paras 21, 24).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish any substantial evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness in the evaluation process. The tender committee's findings were upheld as valid (Paras 36, 38).
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tender invitation and submission process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. evaluation of bids and complaints by participants. (Para 7 , 12 , 22) |
| 3. judicial review limits and evaluations. (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 4. judicial scrutiny of tender agreements. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. court's ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 38) |
1. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vibhu Rai, Abhinav Gaur and Ami Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ajit Sinha along with Mr. Anurag Khanna assisted by Ms. Devika Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 6 declaring the responsive bids in the tender.
(ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the decision dated 25.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 6 declaring the result of financial bids.
(iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to constituted a High Level Committee to enquire into the fraud committed anyhow to get the contract awarded to respondent no. 10 by manipulating the data on Prahari website."
3. The respondent no. 5 had issued an advertisement / notice inviting tenders on 15.12.2022 for expansion and beautification of Ahraura Madihan Lalganj Road which is a State Highway No. 150 in District - Mirzapur. This project was to be completed within a period of 18 months. The bids so invited were to be submitted on the official website between 31.01.2023 to 19.01.2023. It was provided in the Notice Inviting Tender"" (for short NIT) that the technical evaluation of bids will be done using "Prahari" Software having URL - http: / / wms.uppwd.gov.in / prahari / . The bidders were supposed to upload all kinds of information and documents at Prahari Software. After uploading all kinds of information and documents on the http: / / etender.up.nic.in website, the bidders were supposed to download the technical sheet and uploaded the scanned copy of the technical sheet on e - tender portal i.e. http: / / etender.up.nic.in.
4. The petitioner claims that he had duly submitted its technical bid online on 21.01.2023 on Prahari website and the technical sheet was then downloaded and re - uploaded on the e - tender website i.e. http: / / etender.up.nic.in.
5. The result of the analysis of technical bids and documents in the said bid on the Prahari website were declared online on 23.01.2023 in which, the technical bid of the petitioner was declared as "responsive" in all respects.
6. Thereafter, all of the bidders were granted 72 hours to submit their objections, if any, on the technical bids and documents submitted on Prahari website by other bidders. Various objections were raised by the other bidders on the veracity & authenticity of documents uploaded by the petitioner.
7. The Tender Evaluating Committee after evaluating the objections, declared the bid of of respondent no. 10 as "responsive" and the bid of the petitioner as "non - responsive" on the ground that there were certain discrepancies in respect of the invoices provided by the petitioner. It is worthwhile to mention that out of eight bidders, only bid of two bidders were found to be "responsive". The petitioner objected to the decision of the Tender Evaluating Committee. He submitted that earlier his bid was "responsive" on the Prahari App but the Tender Evaluating Committee had malafidely declared as "non - responsive".
8. An allegation of mala fide was made by the petitioner on the ground that, in the Tender Evaluating Committee, respondent no. 9 who was the Superintending Engineer and was handling the tender evaluation, had been promoted, so the Engineer - in - Chief vide letter dated 01.03.2023 requested respondent no. 9 to handover the
