Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 807 - HC - Indian LawsConstitutional Validity of Conditions No. 4 and 5 under Technical Bid Evaluation (Additional Eligibility) criteria in e-tender notice ID No. 2020- _AAI_048738_1 issued by the respondent No.2/AAI (AAI) inviting applications for providing environmental support services (up- keeping) - HELD THAT:- The scope of judicial review in matters relating to tender are now well settled. In JAGDISH MANDAL VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [2006 (12) TMI 447 - SUPREME COURT], after considering the relevant case law, the Supreme Court had observed that There were good and adequate reasons for the Committee to reject the lowest tenders of fifth respondent in both cases and there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the contracts awarded to the respective appellant in these two appeals. We also record the statement made by the counsel for the appellants in the two appeals, on instructions, that the appellants are ready and willing to execute their respective works, without seeking any revision in rates or compensation for the delay in commencement of the work on account of pendency of the legal proceedings till now. In the instant case, nothing has been brought out by the petitioner to demonstrate that the process adopted or the decision taken by the respondent No 2/AAI is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. There is no material to arrive to a conclusion that the decision taken by the respondent No.2/AAI is arbitrary or irrational or that public interest is adversely affected that would compel us to interfere in the tender conditions - It has only made them more stringent. It cannot be said that the authority issuing the tender is not empowered to impose more stringent conditions to ensure better quality of performance of the contract and also to ensure that the contractor has the financial means to execute the contract and that he is not a fly by night operator who will abandon the work midstream. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how Conditions No.4 and 5 have been introduced only to eliminate it or to favour a few individuals. There is no justification for this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only to dilute the additional stringent conditions imposed by the respondent No.2/AAI in order to make it compliant with the CVC guidelines. From a perusal of the above, the principle which emerges is that after having participated in the tender process, a bidder cannot turn around and challenge the tender conditions. The bidder has no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested parties in response to the NIT in a transparent manner and free from any hidden agenda - petition dismissed.
|