Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Veejay Facility Management Private Limited and its Director, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of a tender for Premises and Facility Management Service contract by Bank of India (BOI) in favour of M/s. Raj Facility Management Services (RFMS). The tender was initially floated on 5th April 2019 but was scrapped due to objections. Fresh tenders were invited on 16th May 2019, and the petitioners participated. The contract was for a term of three years for the Zonal Office building at Patto Plaza, Panaji. The petitioners alleged that the tender conditions were tailored to favour RFMS, that the bank had relaxed eligibility criteria arbitrarily, and that the award was mala fide. The court heard arguments from both sides. The court noted that the petitioners had participated in the tender process without raising any objections at the time of submission. The court examined the tender conditions and found that the bank had the discretion to relax certain requirements, and there was no evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides. The court held that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to checking for arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fides, and the court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the tendering authority. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court examined whether the award of a tender by a public sector bank was arbitrary or unreasonable. Held that the court's role in tender matters is limited to checking for arbitrariness, mala fides, or unreasonableness; it cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the tendering authority. (Paras 4-10) B) Tender Law - Level Playing Field - Eligibility Criteria - The petitioners alleged that the tender conditions were tailored to favour the successful bidder. The court found no evidence of mala fides or bias, and noted that the petitioners themselves had participated in the tender process without objection. Held that a level playing field must be maintained, but the court will not interfere unless there is clear arbitrariness. (Paras 5-8) C) Tender Law - Financial Capacity - Turnover Requirement - The petitioners challenged the relaxation of turnover requirement for the successful bidder. The court observed that the tender conditions allowed for relaxation, and the bank's decision was based on commercial prudence. Held that the court should not substitute its own view in commercial matters. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the award of tender by Bank of India in favour of Respondent No.2 is arbitrary, unreasonable, or mala fide, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Judicial review of tender awards
- Scope of interference under Article 226
- Public interest
- Level playing field
- Arbitrariness
- Unreasonableness
- Mala fides
