Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the disqualification of the petitioner from the technical evaluation of a public works tender. The petitioner, a joint venture of government contractors, participated in a tender floated by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division No.3, Nagpur, for development of Ambhora Tourism Place, including tourist facilities, temple development, and beautification work. The estimated cost was Rs.115,90,98,082 with a completion period of 24 months. The petitioner submitted its bid on 08/04/2024. On 25/04/2024, respondent No.4 informed the petitioner of certain shortfalls in the technical bid, including missing declarations and experience certificates. The petitioner submitted explanations and later informed that a certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Dhantoli Zone, NMC, Nagpur had a typographical error: it mentioned UCR Masonry instead of CR Masonry. The Executive Engineer issued a correction letter dated 07/05/2024 confirming the typographical error. Despite this, the technical bids were evaluated on 01/07/2024 and the petitioner was disqualified. The petitioner alleged that the rejection was perverse, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It contended that the State cannot act arbitrarily in contractual matters and every action must be informed by reason. Additionally, the petitioner objected to the technical qualification of respondent No.7, alleging that its experience certificate was issued on a Sunday by a trustee lacking technical knowledge and that the joint venture share was disproportionate. The respondents argued that the petitioner submitted misleading and incorrect documents, including three different certificates for the same work, and was disqualified under Clause 4.7 of the tender document for making false representations and having a litigation history. The available judgment text records the parties' contentions up to paragraph 14 but does not include the final decision or operative order. The court reserved judgment on 07/07/2025 and pronounced on 25/07/2025, but the substantive reasoning and outcome beyond the pleadings are not provided in the supplied extract.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Arbitrariness in State Contracts - State action must conform to rational and non-discriminatory standards - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The petitioner contended that the rejection of its technical bid was arbitrary, without reason, and violated Article 14 because the State must act in accordance with the rule of law even in contractual matters. The court examined the principle that every action of the State executive authority must be informed by reason (Paras 9-10). B) Tender Law - Technical Bid Evaluation - Evaluation must follow tender criteria and not introduce new distinctions - Public Works Department Tender Conditions, Clauses 4.3(6), 4.4.1(c), 4.7 - The petitioner argued that the tender condition did not specify experience in Uncoursed Rubble Masonry or Coursed Rubble Masonry, and the Technical Evaluation Committee could not make such a distinction; the rejection based on UCR/CR Masonry was contrary to tender conditions. The court was required to assess whether the evaluation hewed to the tender document (Paras 10-11). C) Tender Law - Qualification of Other Bidders - Validity of experience certificates and joint venture share - Public Works Department Tender Conditions, Clauses 4.3(6), 4.4.1(c) - The petitioner challenged respondent No.7's experience certificate dated 07/04/2024 issued by a trust, alleging it was issued on Sunday by a trustee without technical knowledge, and also objected to respondent No.7's joint venture share being disproportionate to average annual turnover. The court noted these contentions as part of the dispute over technical qualification (Paras 8, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid by the Public Works Department was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether the petitioner was erroneously disqualified despite submitting corrected experience certificates.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (final order not provided in the available text)
Law Points
- State action in contractual matters must conform to rational and non-discriminatory standards
- arbitrariness violates Article 14 of Constitution of India
- tender evaluation must adhere to tender conditions
- typographical errors in experience certificates should be verified rather than leading to arbitrary disqualification
- technical evaluation committee cannot introduce distinctions not specified in tender
