Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Shyamsingh Devisingh Thakur & Construction Company and its partner, filed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of the tender bid of respondent no.2, M/s. Chandan Construction, by the Municipal Council, Mohpa (respondent no.1) for the construction of a minor bridge across Madhuganga River. The tender was published on 24.10.2018. The petitioner no.1 along with respondent nos. 2 to 4 submitted bids. On 04.12.2018, the technical bids were opened and all envelopes were found valid, after which the financial bids were opened. The bid of respondent no.2 was the lowest, and the Municipal Council proposed to issue a work order to it. The petitioners contended that respondent no.2 was not technically qualified as it did not satisfy the essential conditions in Clauses 1.4.7, 1.4.9, and 1.4.10 of the tender notice, which required details of similar work with supporting certificates. The petitioners sought disqualification of respondent no.2 and issuance of the work order to petitioner no.1, claiming to be the lowest bidder. The court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioners' counsel argued that respondent no.2 had not carried out any work of similar nature (bridge construction) and thus its financial bid should not have been opened. The respondents' counsel argued that the tender conditions were not mandatory and that the evaluation was proper. The court examined the tender documents and found that respondent no.2 had submitted certificates showing experience in construction of roads, culverts, and other works, which were similar in nature. The court also noted that the petitioner's bid was not the lowest; the petitioner's bid was higher than that of respondent no.2. The court held that the decision of the Municipal Council to accept the bid of respondent no.2 was not arbitrary or illegal, and that the court's interference in tender matters is limited. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Technical Qualification - Essential Conditions - Clauses 1.4.7, 1.4.9, 1.4.10 of Tender Notice - The petitioner challenged the acceptance of the lowest bid of respondent no.2 on the ground that it did not satisfy the essential conditions regarding similar work experience. The court held that the tender conditions were not mandatory but essential, and the evaluation by the Municipal Council was not arbitrary. The court found that the respondent no.2 had submitted documents showing experience in similar construction work, and the petitioner's bid was not the lowest. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent no.2 was technically qualified to participate in the financial bid process and whether the acceptance of its tender bid was arbitrary or illegal.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender evaluation
- technical qualification
- essential conditions
- judicial review of administrative decisions
- scope of interference in tender matters
