Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy Private Limited and Mrs. Sapna Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging the tender process initiated by the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (respondent no.1) for aviation support for its CAIPEEX-II experiment. The tender was for supply, installation, and demonstration of three items: Cloud Physics Aircraft, Cloud seeding aircraft, and Polarimetric radar. The first tender notice was issued on 12.11.2009, and the petitioners were the only bidder who submitted a bid within the stipulated time. M/s.Krishi Consultants submitted their bid after the specified time. The respondent no.1 issued a corrigendum extending the last date of submission from 24.12.2009 to 11.1.2010. The petitioners alleged that this extension was arbitrary and intended to favour M/s.Krishi Consultants. The court heard arguments from the learned Advocate General for the petitioners, Mr. Godbole for respondent no.1, and Mrs. Soma Singh for respondent no.2. The court considered whether the extension of the deadline was arbitrary. The court held that the extension was not arbitrary as it was done to allow more bidders to participate and ensure a competitive process. The court found no evidence of mala fides and held that the extension was within the discretion of the tendering authority. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Extension of Time - The court considered whether the extension of the bid submission deadline by the respondent no.1 was arbitrary. The court held that the extension was not arbitrary as it was done to allow more bidders to participate and ensure a competitive process. (Paras 3-6)
B) Tender Law - Level Playing Field - Corrigendum - The court examined whether the corrigendum extending the deadline was issued to favour M/s.Krishi Consultants. The court found no evidence of mala fides and held that the extension was within the discretion of the tendering authority. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the extension of the last date of submission of bid by the respondent no.1 through a corrigendum was arbitrary and intended to favour a particular bidder, thereby vitiating the tender process.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Judicial review of administrative action
- Level playing field
- Extension of time
- Corrigendum
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 43
Writ Petition No.4257 of 2010 with Civil Application No.1404 of 2010
D.D. Sinha, Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. Mobhit Gadkari & Co., for the petitioners; Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr. S.M. Railkar for respondent no.1; Mrs. Soma Singh for respondent no.2
Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy Private Limited and Mrs. Sapna Sharma
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Union of India, and Dr. Daniel Rosenfeld
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the tender process initiated by respondent no.1 for aviation support services.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the corrigendum extending the bid submission deadline and to set aside the tender process.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the extension of the bid submission deadline was arbitrary and intended to favour M/s.Krishi Consultants.
Issues
Whether the extension of the last date of submission of bid by the respondent no.1 through a corrigendum was arbitrary and intended to favour a particular bidder, thereby vitiating the tender process.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned Advocate General for the petitioners submitted that the first tender notice was issued on 12.11.2009, and the petitioners were the only bidder who submitted a bid within the stipulated time. M/s.Krishi Consultants submitted their bid after the specified time, and the respondent no.1 extended the last date of submission to favour them.
Mr. Godbole for respondent no.1 and Mrs. Soma Singh for respondent no.2 argued that the extension was within the discretion of the tendering authority and was done to ensure a competitive process.
Ratio Decidendi
The extension of the bid submission deadline through a corrigendum was not arbitrary and was within the discretion of the tendering authority. The court found no evidence of mala fides or favouritism.
Judgment Excerpts
The tender process in question was initiated by the respondent no.1 for the purpose of availing aviation support for its CAIPEEX-II experiment.
The learned Advocate General has submitted that following three tender notices were issued by the respondent no.1.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed challenging the tender process. The court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 17.06.2010, pronouncing it on 02.07.2010.
