Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Bharat Biotech International Ltd. challenging the disqualification of the Second Respondent (another bidder) in a tender process for the supply of Anti Rabies Vaccine (ARV) to state-run hospitals in Maharashtra. The Directorate of Medical Education and Research invited bids in September 2009 for a rate contract for 2010-2012. The Government of Maharashtra's resolution dated 27 March 2000, based on the Lentin Committee recommendations, mandated a two-bid system: the first envelope containing technical eligibility documents and the second containing the commercial bid. Only technically qualified bidders' commercial bids would be opened. Five bidders submitted offers, including the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5. The technical bids were opened on 15 July 2010. On 17 August 2010, the Tender Approval Committee (TAC) met and unanimously disqualified the Second Respondent on the ground that its vaccine was not WHO pre-qualified as required by the tender conditions. The petitioner, whose own bid was technically qualified and whose commercial bid was opened, challenged the disqualification of the Second Respondent, arguing that the TAC's decision was arbitrary and that the Second Respondent's vaccine was indeed WHO pre-qualified. The court examined the tender conditions and the TAC's minutes. The court noted that the tender required the ARV to be WHO pre-qualified, and the Second Respondent's bid stated that its vaccine was 'WHO pre-qualified'. However, the TAC found that the vaccine was not actually pre-qualified by WHO. The court held that the TAC's interpretation of the condition was reasonable and that the disqualification was not arbitrary. The court also observed that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the disqualification of another bidder since its own bid was not affected. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the TAC's decision. The court emphasized that judicial review of tender decisions is limited to ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness, and courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of the expert committee.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Government Contracts - Two-Bid System - Technical Qualification - The Government of Maharashtra's resolution dated 27 March 2000, based on Lentin Committee recommendations, mandates a two-bid system for procurement of drugs. The first envelope contains technical eligibility documents, and only technically qualified bidders' commercial bids are opened. The Tender Approval Committee (TAC) is empowered to assess technical eligibility and disqualify non-compliant bidders. In this case, the TAC unanimously disqualified the Second Respondent for failing to provide a WHO pre-qualified Anti Rabies Vaccine as required by the tender conditions. The court held that the TAC's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the tender conditions and was not arbitrary. (Paras 2-4, 8-10) B) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Courts should not sit in appeal over tender decisions unless there is arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules. The court's role is limited to ensuring that the decision-making process is fair and transparent. In this case, the petitioner challenged the disqualification of the Second Respondent, but the court found no infirmity in the TAC's decision. The court also noted that the petitioner's own bid was technically qualified and its commercial bid was opened, so the petitioner had no locus to challenge the disqualification of another bidder. (Paras 5-7, 11-12) C) Tender Law - Conditions of Tender - Interpretation - The tender conditions required bidders to supply WHO pre-qualified Anti Rabies Vaccine. The Second Respondent's bid stated that its vaccine was 'WHO pre-qualified' but the TAC found that the vaccine was not actually pre-qualified by WHO. The court held that the TAC's interpretation of the condition was reasonable and that the disqualification was justified. The court also noted that the Second Respondent had not challenged its disqualification. (Paras 3-4, 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification of the Second Respondent by the Tender Approval Committee was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether the court should interfere with the tender process.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Tender Approval Committee to disqualify the Second Respondent. The court found no arbitrariness in the TAC's decision and held that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the disqualification of another bidder.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Government contracts
- Two-bid system
- Technical qualification
- Judicial review of administrative decisions
- Lentin Committee recommendations
