Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a tender floated by Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation for provision of helpers to security guards. The petitioner, a service provider since 2016, submitted a bid but was disqualified during technical evaluation for failure to meet experience criteria under Clause 3(m) of the tender document. The petitioner's initial writ petition challenging the rejection was disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to reconsider the petitioner's representation concerning Clause 3(m)(c), allowing the petitioner to submit additional documents. However, the petitioner failed to provide any fresh material, and the Corporation maintained its rejection. In the present second writ petition, the petitioner again contested the disqualification and also objected to the grant of an opportunity to other bidders to cure shortfalls in their documents. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or perversity. On the first ground, the court found that the objection regarding shortfall documents for other bidders was barred by constructive res judicata, as it had already been raised in the first petition and not expressly granted relief. Moreover, the Government Resolution dated 17 September 2019 itself permitted such an opportunity. On the second ground, the court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated compliance with Clause 3(m)(c) even after the afforded opportunity, and the Corporation's decision was not arbitrary. The bench emphasized that it would not substitute its own technical assessment for that of the tendering authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim stay vacated.
Headnote
A) Judicial Review - Tender Matters - Scope of Interference - Article 226, Constitution of India - The High Court held that the power of judicial review in tender decisions is limited and the court will not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or perverse. The court found no evidence of arbitrariness in the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid. (Paras 8, 10-12)
B) Constructive Res Judicata - Subsequent Petitions - Order II Rule 2 CPC / Principle of Constructive Res Judicata - The petitioner’s objection regarding the grant of opportunity to Respondent Nos.3-6 to submit shortfall documents was already raised and not specifically addressed in the earlier Writ Petition No.2529 of 2025. Re-agitation of the same objection in a second writ petition on the same cause of action is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The earlier order limited the scope of remand to re-evaluation of Clause 3(m)(c) for the petitioner only. (Paras 10-11)
C) Tender Conditions - Eligibility Criteria - Clause 3(m)(c) of Tender Notice No.2/2024-2025 - The petitioner failed to prove that it satisfied the eligibility condition requiring execution of one work of 80% contract value plus provision of 955 security helpers. Despite being granted an opportunity after the earlier writ petition to submit additional documents, the petitioner did not produce any new evidence. The rejection of the technical bid was therefore held legal and not arbitrary. (Paras 4, 6-7, 12)
D) Government Resolution - Shortfall Documents - Government Resolution dated 17 September 2019 - The Government Resolution mandates that bidders be given an opportunity to submit shortfall documents. The Municipal Corporation’s action in allowing Respondent Nos.3-6 to do so was in compliance with this policy and was not a valid ground for interference. (Para 11)
E) Judicial Restraint - Technical Evaluation - Non-Interference - The court reiterated that it would not sit in appeal over the technical evaluation of the tendering authority. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fides or perversity in the evaluation, the petition was dismissed. (Paras 8, 12, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of petitioner's technical bid was arbitrary; Whether the grant of opportunity to Respondent Nos.3-6 to submit shortfall documents was illegal; Whether the objection regarding shortfall documents is barred by constructive res judicata; Whether petitioner fulfilled eligibility criteria under Clause 3(m)(c) of the tender.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. Interim order vacated. No notice issued to Respondent Nos.3-6. The court found no infirmity in the rejection of the technical bid and held that the first ground was barred by constructive res judicata.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- judicial review in tender matters is limited
- strict adherence to eligibility criteria is required
- principle of constructive res judicata bars re-agitation of decided objections
- Government Resolution dated 17 September 2019 mandates opportunity to submit shortfall documents
- Article 226 does not confer appellate power over technical evaluations
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 21
Writ Petition No.6703 of 2025
Alok Aradhe, CJ. & Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Citation not available, 2025:BHC-AS:24159-DB
Mr. Simil Purohit, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Anandsingh Bayas (for Petitioner), Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional GP with Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP (for Respondent No.1-State), Mr. Kedar Dighe (for Respondent No.2-PCMC)
National Security Services (through its Manager) Deepak Mahavir Limbikai
1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Commissioner/Administrator, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, 3. B.V.G. India Limited, 4. Krystal Integrated Services Ltd., 5. Smart Services Pvt. Ltd., 6. Sainik Intelligence and Security Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Constitutional writ petition under Article 226 challenging rejection of technical bid in a tender process for security helpers.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of decisions dated 17 February 2025 and 22 April 2025, disqualification of Respondent Nos.3 to 6, and direction to consider its own bid.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's technical bid was rejected for non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria under Clause 3(m) of the tender.
Previous Decisions
Earlier Writ Petition No.2529 of 2025 was filed challenging the same rejection; it was disposed of on 25 March 2025 directing the Municipal Corporation to reconsider the petitioner's representation regarding Clause 3(m)(c) with liberty to submit additional documents.
Issues
Whether the rejection of petitioner's technical bid was arbitrary and in violation of tender conditions
Whether the grant of opportunity to Respondent Nos.3-6 to submit shortfall documents was illegal
Whether the principle of constructive res judicata barred re-agitation of objection regarding shortfall documents
Whether petitioner fulfilled eligibility criteria under Clause 3(m)(c) of the tender
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that rejection was irrational and arbitrary, that it had experience of deploying 1413 helpers and satisfied clause 3(m)(c), that it was permissible to consolidate work certificates, and that respondent corporation acted contrary to tender conditions.
Respondent corporation contended that petitioner did not satisfy clauses 3(m)(a) and (b), and despite opportunity under clause 3(m)(c) no additional documents were produced; that grant of shortfall opportunity to others was proper under Government Resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the technical disqualification of the petitioner was not arbitrary; the petitioner had failed to produce any additional documents to satisfy Clause 3(m)(c) despite opportunity. The objection regarding grant of shortfall opportunity to other bidders was barred by constructive res judicata as it was already decided in the earlier writ petition. The court reiterated that judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining the decision-making process for arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or perversity, and courts do not sit in appeal over technical evaluations by the tendering authority. The Government Resolution dated 17 September 2019 mandates grant of opportunity to submit shortfall documents, and thus the action of the respondent Corporation was lawful.
Judgment Excerpts
We are satisfied that the petitioner does not fulfill clauses 3(m) (a) and 3(m)(b) on the basis of the materials on record and as such, there is no infirmity on the part of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner in technical bid.
the objection is clearly barred by principle of constructive res judicata.
the Government Resolution dated 17 September 2019 mandates grant of opportunity to the bidders to submit shortfall documents.
Since we are proceeding to reject the said ground raised by the Petitioner, it is not necessary to issue notice to Respondent Nos.3 to 6.
Procedural History
Petitioner submitted bid in response to tender issued by Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation on 23 September 2024. Technical bids were opened on 5 November 2024. Petitioner's bid was disqualified on 17 February 2025 for lack of experience. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2529 of 2025 challenging the rejection. That writ petition was disposed of on 25 March 2025 with a direction to the Corporation to decide the petitioner's representation regarding Clause 3(m)(c) after permitting the petitioner to submit additional documents. Petitioner submitted a representation on 26 March 2025 but failed to provide any additional documents. The Corporation rejected the representation by order dated 22 April 2025. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition No.6703 of 2025. This Court passed an interim order on 29 May 2025 directing that the final decision in the tender process not be implemented. After hearing the parties, judgment was reserved on 16 June 2025 and pronounced on 19 June 2025 dismissing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
