Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. V.N.Reddy, a government contractor, challenged the issuance of a work order dated 07.05.2021 by the Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project Division, Wardha (respondent no.2) in favor of respondent no.3, M/s. Om Gurusai Construction Company. The dispute arose from a tender notice issued on 18.01.2021 for construction of land development works. Three bidders submitted bids; technical bids were opened on 08.02.2021, and the petitioner and respondent no.3 were found eligible. On 12.03.2021, financial bids were opened, and respondent no.3's bid was the lowest. Clause 2.22.0 required the lowest bidder to furnish additional performance security within two working days. The petitioner alleged that respondent no.3 furnished the security on the third working day, thus should be disqualified. The court examined the timeline: financial bids opened on 12.03.2021 (Friday), the next working day was 15.03.2021 (Monday), and the security was furnished on 16.03.2021 (Tuesday). The court held that the period of two working days commenced from the date of opening, and since the security was furnished on the third working day, it was within time. The court also rejected ancillary grounds regarding document shortcomings, finding them minor. The petition was dismissed, upholding the work order.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Additional Performance Security - Time Period - Clause 2.22.0 - The issue was whether the third respondent furnished additional performance security within the prescribed period of two working days. The court held that the period of two working days commenced from the date of opening of financial bids, and since the third respondent submitted the security on the third working day, it was within time as the first working day was the date of opening itself. (Paras 4-6) B) Tender Law - Disqualification - Minor Discrepancies - The petitioner raised ancillary grounds regarding shortcomings in documents submitted by the third respondent. The court found that these were minor discrepancies and did not warrant disqualification, as the tender conditions did not mandate rejection for such minor issues. (Paras 7-8) C) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope - The court reiterated that in tender matters, the scope of judicial review is limited to examining whether the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The court found no such infirmity in the present case. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the third respondent's failure to furnish additional performance security within two working days as per Clause 2.22.0 of the tender conditions warranted his disqualification from the tender process.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The work order dated 07.05.2021 issued in favor of the third respondent is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of tender conditions
- Additional performance security
- Time period computation
- Working days
- Disqualification of bidder
- Judicial review of tender process
