Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Aditya Construction Company (J.V.), a joint venture partnership firm, challenged the rejection of its bid by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (Respondent No.2) in response to E-Tender Notice No.2/2021-2022 dated 06/07/2021 for the construction of balance earth work of a dam in Chandrapur district. The estimated cost of the project was Rs.71,04,73,961/-. The petitioner submitted its bid along with all required documents as per the tender conditions. However, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner's bid on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted 'Form B', which was allegedly required under the tender. The petitioner contended that the tender document did not mention any requirement for 'Form B' and that the rejection was arbitrary and illegal. The respondents argued that 'Form B' was a standard form required for all tenders and that the petitioner's failure to submit it rendered the bid non-responsive. The court analyzed the tender conditions and found that there was no mention of 'Form B' in the tender document. The court held that the rejection was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law. The court also emphasized that while courts should not interfere with tender policy decisions, they must intervene when administrative actions are arbitrary or discriminatory.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Compliance with Tender Conditions - Rejection of Bid - The court considered whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid for non-submission of 'Form B' was justified when the tender document did not require such form. Held that the rejection was arbitrary and the petitioner's bid ought to have been considered (Paras 10-15). B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Arbitrariness - The court examined the scope of judicial review in tender matters and held that while courts should not interfere with policy decisions, they must strike down arbitrary actions that violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Held that the rejection was arbitrary (Paras 16-20). C) Contract Law - Tender Process - Non-Discrimination - The court held that all bidders must be treated equally and that the respondent's insistence on a form not mentioned in the tender conditions was discriminatory. Held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid by the respondent authorities for non-submission of 'Form B' was arbitrary and illegal, and whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for the award of the contract.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection of the petitioner's bid, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Arbitrariness
- Judicial review of administrative action
- Compliance with tender conditions
- Non-discrimination
