Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kailash Constructions, challenged the award of a tender by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) to respondent no. 5, M/s Mavin Switchgears and Control, for the design, supply, erection, testing and commissioning of a 132 KV transmission line. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 5 did not meet the technical qualifying requirement under clause 1.13.2(a) of having successfully completed a similar work of at least 32 km in a single order during the last three years. Additionally, the petitioner contended that respondent no. 5 failed to submit two tender documents in envelope no. 1 as required, and that the department improperly relaxed these conditions to favour respondent no. 5. The petitioner also argued that the security deposit was not deposited within the stipulated time. The respondents, including VIDC and respondent no. 5, defended the award, stating that the conditions were not essential and could be relaxed, and that the decision was taken in a fair and transparent manner. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the conditions in question were not essential conditions but technical qualifying requirements, and the department had the discretion to relax them. The court found no arbitrariness or mala fides in the decision, noting that the petitioner had no vested right to the contract. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the tender award to respondent no. 5.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Court's power to review tender decisions is limited to arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias - The court cannot sit as an appellate authority over technical evaluations or relaxations of conditions unless they are essential and non-waivable - Held that the relaxation of clause 1.13.2(a) and the acceptance of a single set of documents were not arbitrary as the conditions were not essential and the department acted within its discretion (Paras 5-7). B) Tender Law - Eligibility Criteria - Relaxation - Non-essential conditions can be relaxed by the tendering authority - The condition regarding experience of 32 km line and submission of two tender documents were not essential conditions but technical qualifying requirements - Held that the department's decision to relax these conditions in favour of respondent no. 5 was not arbitrary or mala fide (Paras 5-7). C) Tender Law - Vested Right - No vested right in tender process - A bidder has no fundamental right to be awarded a contract; only a right to be considered fairly - Held that the petitioner's challenge failed as no arbitrariness or mala fides were established (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acceptance of respondent no. 5's tender by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation was arbitrary and illegal due to alleged non-compliance with eligibility criteria and tender conditions.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the tender conditions were not statutory and the department's relaxation of non-essential conditions was not arbitrary. The court found no mala fides or arbitrariness in the award of the tender to respondent no. 5.
Law Points
- Tender conditions are not statutory
- relaxation of non-essential conditions permissible
- judicial review limited to arbitrariness and mala fides
- no vested right in tender process
