Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Sadashiv Morajkar Construction Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the respondents (Government of Goa, Superintending Engineer, and Executive Engineer) not to open its tender submitted in response to a notice inviting tenders for a construction project. The petitioner was registered with the Government of Goa as a Class I contractor, but the respondents refused to open the tender on the ground that the petitioner was not registered with the 'appropriate authority' as per the tender conditions. The petitioner argued that the condition requiring registration with the 'appropriate authority' should be interpreted reasonably, and since it was registered with the Government of Goa, which was the appropriate authority for the work, the rejection was arbitrary. The respondents contended that the 'appropriate authority' meant the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) or similar authority, and the petitioner's registration with the State Government was insufficient. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the condition must be interpreted reasonably and that the petitioner's registration with the Government of Goa satisfied the requirement. The court found the decision to reject the tender arbitrary and unreasonable, and directed the respondents to open and consider the petitioner's tender in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Interpretation of Conditions - 'Appropriate Authority' - The court held that the condition requiring registration with the 'appropriate authority' must be interpreted reasonably, and since the petitioner was registered with the Government of Goa, which was the appropriate authority for the work in question, the rejection was arbitrary. (Paras 3-5) B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Tender Process - The court held that the decision of the respondents not to open the petitioner's tender was arbitrary and unreasonable, and directed the respondents to open and consider the petitioner's tender in accordance with law. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of the respondents not to open the tender submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not registered with the 'appropriate authority' as required by the tender condition was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the decision of the respondents not to open the petitioner's tender, and directed the respondents to open and consider the petitioner's tender in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of tender conditions
- Reasonable construction of contractual terms
- Judicial review of administrative decisions
- Principles of natural justice in tender process
