Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Pharmaveda (I) Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of specialty food products including dietetic foods, challenged its disqualification in a technical bid for a tender issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nandurbar (respondent No.1). The tender was for the supply of multi-micronutrient supplement granules to children aged 3-6 years and to pregnant and lactating mothers in tribal areas. The petitioner claimed that it had uploaded all required documents, but they were not properly evaluated, and that the bids of respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Narmada Enterprises and Shree Enterprises) were accepted despite lacking the necessary FSSAI license. The petitioner also alleged lack of transparency as the documents of respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not visible. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was arbitrary and without proper application of mind. The court set aside the disqualification and directed respondent No.1 to re-evaluate the technical bids in accordance with the tender terms and procurement rules, ensuring transparency. The court also noted that the requirement of FSSAI license was mandatory and needed to be verified.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Technical Bid Evaluation - Non-Application of Mind - Procurement Rules - The petitioner's technical bid was rejected despite uploading all required documents, indicating non-application of mind by the evaluation committee. The court held that the rejection was arbitrary and set aside the disqualification. (Paras 2-3) B) Tender Law - Eligibility Criteria - Requirement of FSSAI License - The petitioner contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not possess the required FSSAI license at the time of bid submission. The court examined the tender conditions and found that the license was a mandatory requirement. (Para 3A) C) Tender Law - Transparency - Evaluation of Bids - The petitioner alleged that the documents uploaded by respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not visible or the facility was disabled, raising concerns about transparency. The court directed the respondent to re-evaluate the bids with proper transparency. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid and acceptance of respondent Nos.2 and 3's bids were arbitrary and contrary to the tender terms and procurement rules.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the disqualification of the petitioner, and directed respondent No.1 to re-evaluate the technical bids in accordance with the tender terms and procurement rules, ensuring transparency.
Law Points
- Tender evaluation must be transparent and in accordance with procurement rules
- Non-application of mind in rejecting a bid is arbitrary
- Bidder must possess required licenses at the time of bid submission
- Technical evaluation must consider all uploaded documents
