Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, M/s. Raut Enterprises, a sole partnership firm, challenged the decision of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) to award two horticultural maintenance tenders to Respondent No.2, Shree Gajanan Facilities Pvt. Ltd. The tenders were for maintenance of lawns, shrubs, hedges, and allied horticultural works at BARC Staff Colony and Plant Site, Tarapur. The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.2 did not meet the eligibility criteria and that BARC acted arbitrarily and mala fide in awarding the contracts. The court examined the tender conditions and the evaluation process. It found that Respondent No.2 had submitted the required documents and met the eligibility criteria. The court held that the evaluation of technical bids was within the domain of the tender committee and that there was no evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the award of the tenders to Respondent No.2.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - The court's power to interfere in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. The court will not sit as a court of appeal over the technical evaluation of bids. (Paras 1-25)
B) Tender Law - Level Playing Field - Eligibility Criteria - The Petitioner's claim that it was denied a level playing field because Respondent No.2 was allowed to participate despite not meeting the eligibility criteria was rejected. The court found that the eligibility criteria were met by Respondent No.2. (Paras 10-20)
C) Tender Law - Technical Evaluation - The evaluation of technical bids by the tender committee is a matter of expertise and the court will not substitute its own view unless the decision is perverse or mala fide. (Paras 15-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of BARC to award the tenders to Respondent No.2 was arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of the tender conditions, and whether the Petitioner was denied a level playing field.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the award of the tenders to Respondent No.2.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Judicial review of administrative action
- Scope of interference in tender matters
- Level playing field
- Technical evaluation
- Eligibility criteria
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (03) 41
Writ Petition No. 6373 of 2021
S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav
Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi, Mr. Vipul Shelar, Mr. Suraj Naik for Petitioner; Mr. Y.R. Mishra, Mr. D.P. Singh for Respondent No.1; Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav for Respondent No.2; Mr. Arsh Misra instructed by M.V.Kini and Co. for Respondent No.3; Mr. Anil Singh, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Aditya Thakkar instructed by Ms. Anusha P. Amin for Respondent No.4; Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of BARC to award tenders to Respondent No.2.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to quash the work orders issued in favor of Respondent No.2 and to direct BARC to award the tenders to the Petitioner.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.2 did not meet the eligibility criteria and that BARC acted arbitrarily and mala fide in awarding the tenders.
Issues
Whether the decision of BARC to award the tenders to Respondent No.2 was arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of the tender conditions?
Whether the Petitioner was denied a level playing field?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Respondent No.2 did not meet the eligibility criteria and that BARC acted arbitrarily.
Respondents argued that the evaluation was fair and in accordance with the tender conditions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court's power to interfere in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. The evaluation of technical bids by the tender committee is a matter of expertise and the court will not substitute its own view unless the decision is perverse or mala fide.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the decision of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre to award the following tenders to Respondent No.2.
The court's power to interfere in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay challenging the award of tenders by BARC to Respondent No.2. The court reserved judgment on 14th February 2022 and pronounced it on 17th March 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
