SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Hima Kohli, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Manmeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3811 of 2020 and CM Appl. 13652 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 4020 of 2020 and CM Appl. 14417-19 of 2020
Decided On : 21-07-2020




The cancellation of a tender by an authority is valid if based on reasonable grounds related to competition and transparency, despite claims of contract formation post-offer acceptance.

Headnote:(A) Tendering process - Need for fair conduct and transparent procedure - Writ petitions challenging cancellation of e-auction tendering process for multilevel parking sites by municipal authority, claimed contract formation post acceptance of offer, yet authority canceled entire process citing lack of healthy competition and possible cartelization, supported by findings of a committee. (Paras 1, 30, 32, 37)

(B) Judicial review - Scope limited to examining legality and procedural propriety in administrative actions - Contractual disputes, even when involving public bodies, typically remitted to civil courts unless grossly arbitrary or irrational. (Paras 28, 46)

(C) Contract Law - Contracts concluded when all conditions fulfilled; however, formal allotment documents and handover of possession remain necessary under tender conditions, leaving authority with discretion to cancel tender process. (Paras 43, 48)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners received notice of cancellation of offers for multilevel parking sites following complaints regarding the tender process; claimed they were H1 bidders after complying with tender conditions. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
Citing reports of alleged cartel formation and improper tender procedures, court held municipal authority validly canceled the process, and petition claims dismissed. (Paras 29, 48)

Issues: Whether a concluded contract arose post-acceptance of tender and whether municipal authority acted arbitrarily in canceling the tender. (Paras 1, 29)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the binding nature of tender offers is maintained until formal allotment. Valid cancellation due to procedural flaws doesn't diminish municipal discretion under public interest. (Paras 30, 37)

Result: Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the communications dated 19.06.2020, issued by the respondent/South Delhi Municipal Corporation (in short, 'SDMC'), informing them that the Competent Authority had decided to recall the entire e-auction tendering process in respect of NIT No.1176 dated 16.03.2020, for e-auctioning six multilevel parking sites within the SDMC jurisdiction. As a result thereof, the offers communicated to the petitioners on 15.05.2020, declaring them as H1 bidders in respect of two multilevel parking sites each, were withdrawn and the advance monthly licence fee and security deposit/performance guarantee deposited by them were directed to be returned.

2. As the factual matrix in both the cases is almost similar, for the sake of convenience, we shall be referring to the facts narrated in W.P.(C) 3811/2020.

3. On 16.03.2020, the respondent/SDMC took steps to invite bids from eligible bidders for regular allotment of six authorized multilevel parking sites in its jurisdiction. In response to the NIT, the petitioner submitted his bids and on 28.04.2020, he was declared as the successful bidder in respect of two multilevel parking sites namely, Hauz Khas (with surrounding surface parking) multilevel underground parking and Kalkaji multilevel parking. On 15.05.2020, the respondent/SDMC issued Offer letters to the petitioner informing him that the Tender Evaluation Committee had found him to be the H1 bidder, eligible to be offered the aforesaid sites for a period of five years (3 years + 2 years) and that he was required to submit the documents mentioned in the said letter along with the requisite fee. Vide email dated 18.05.2020, the petitioner accepted the terms of the Offer letters and proceeded to make requisite compliances, as directed. On 29.05.2020, the petitioner also furnished bank guarantees to the respondent/SDMC in respect of both the sites.

4. Upon failing to hear from the respondent/SDMC thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.06.2020 to the respondent/SDMC, requesting that possession of the parking sites be handed over to him. However, on the very same day, at 11:30 PM, the petitioner received two emails from the respondent/SDMC informing him that it had decided to withdraw the communications dated 15.05.2020 and refund the licence fees and security deposits. For purposes of ready reference, the content of one of the communications dated 19.06.2020 is reproduced hereinbelow:

    "This has reference to the bid process bearing NIT No. 1176 dated 16.03.2020 regarding e-auction of parking sites at Kalkaji Multilevel underground parking. In terms of clause 12 of tender document, the Competent Authority has decided to recall the entire e-auction tendering process by cancellation of the above-mentioned bid process.

    In view of above, the offer communicated vide this office letter No.AC/RP Cell/SDMC/2020/D-29 dated 15.05.2020 is hereby withdrawn & the advance MLF amounting to Rs.9,03,681/- & the Security deposit/performance guarantee equal to Rs.25 Lakh are returned herewith.

    Please acknowledge the same.

    This issues with the prior approval of the Competent Authority."

5. It is not in dispute that though the aforesaid communication bears the date of 19.06.2020, the same was received by the petitioner as an enclosure to the email dated 22.06.2020, timed as 11:30 PM, addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, (RP Cell), SDMC. Aggrieved by the impugned cancellation letters issued in respect of both the parking sites, the petitioner has approached this court, seeking directions to the respondent/SDMC to hand over possession of the two parking sites in respect whereof he was declared as H1 in terms of the Offer letter dated 18.5.2020.

6. Mr. Chandhiok, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner commenced his submissions by narrating the following sequence of events. Seven bids were received by the respondent/SDMC in terms of the NIT issued on 16.03.2020.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top