Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 540 - HC - Indian LawsNotice Inviting Tender - Facility Management Services to the Election Department - Relevant provisions of the notice inviting tender - Valid tenders - Respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted technical bids as well as commercial bids tenders - The technical bid of both petitioner and the respondent no 3 were approved by a technical committee constituted by the respondent authority- Held that :- In the instant case the respondent authority found that it was the tender of Respondent No. 3, which is the valid tender and in that view of the matter made the settlement with Respondent No. 3 at a value lower than the value quoted by the petitioner and I do not find that to be an illegal or unfair exercise of power. Accordingly the contention that the respondent No. 3 was unduly favoured cannot be accepted. The technical committee evaluated and assessed the capability of both the parties and accordingly approved both petitioner and respondent No.3, for opening of the commercial bid. In my considered opinion, it would not be apposite for this court to re-examine and re-evaluate the Technical bid submitted by the respondent no.3 It is found that the offer made by one of the bidders substantially satisfies the requirements of the conditions of notice inviting tender, the employer may be said to have a general power of relaxation in that behalf. Once such a power is exercised, one of the questions which would arise for consideration by the courts would be as to whether exercise of such power was fair, reasonable and bona fide. If the answer thereto is not in the negative, save and except for sufficient and cogent reasons, the writ courts would be well advised to refrain themselves in exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction. In the present case the exercise of power by the respondent in awarding the contract to the respondent No.3 is not mala fide and unreasonable. It is equally true that even in contractual matters, a public authority does not have an unfettered right to ignore the norms recognized by the Courts, but at the same time, if a decision has been taken by a public authority in a bona fide manner by following the procedure prescribed, although not strictly following the norms laid, such decision is upheld on the principle that the Courts, while judging the constitutional validity of executing decisions, must grant a certain measure of freedom of "play in the joints" to the executive. I find that there is no merit in this writ application. Accordingly the same is dismissed. The stay order passed earlier shall stand vacated.
|