Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Sadashiv Morajkar Construction Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company, filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the respondents (Government of Goa, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, and M/s. Assmass Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) not to open the tender submitted by the petitioner and to award the tender to respondent no. 5. The petitioner had submitted a tender for a public works contract. The respondents, without opening the petitioner's tender, decided to award the contract to respondent no. 5, who was a higher bidder. The petitioner contended that this decision was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents argued that the tender was not opened due to some technical defect or other reasons, but the court found no valid justification for the rejection. The court held that the state action in awarding public contracts must be fair, non-arbitrary, and transparent. The rejection of the petitioner's tender without opening it and awarding the contract to a higher bidder without any valid reason was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court quashed the decision of the respondents and directed them to consider the petitioner's tender in accordance with law. The petition was allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Tender Process - Non-Arbitrariness - State action in awarding public contracts must be fair, non-arbitrary, and transparent - The respondents rejected the petitioner's tender without opening it and awarded the contract to a higher bidder without any valid justification - Held that such action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of the respondents not to open the petitioner's tender and to award the contract to respondent no. 5 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the decision of the respondents not to open the petitioner's tender and to award the contract to respondent no. 5, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's tender in accordance with law. Costs were awarded to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Article 14 of Constitution of India
- principles of natural justice
- fairness in tender process
- non-arbitrariness in state action
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 187
Writ Petition No. 75 of 2005
A. P. Lavande, N. A. Britto
Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivan Dessai for petitioner; Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Advocate General with Mr. J.A. Lobo, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4; Mr. S. G. Bhobe for respondent no. 5
M/s. Sadashiv Morajkar Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Government of Goa, Chief Engineer -II, P.W.D., Superintending Engineer, Circle III, P.W.D., Executive Engineer, Works Division XIII (R), P.W.D., and M/s. Assmass Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of tender and award of contract to another bidder.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of decision not to open its tender and award of contract to respondent no. 5.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's tender was not opened and contract was awarded to a higher bidder without valid reasons.
Issues
Whether the decision of the respondents not to open the petitioner's tender and to award the contract to respondent no. 5 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that its tender was the lowest and should have been opened; rejection was arbitrary.
Respondents contended that the tender was not opened due to some technical defect or other reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
State action in awarding public contracts must be fair, non-arbitrary, and transparent. Rejection of a tender without opening it and awarding the contract to a higher bidder without valid justification is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the decision of respondent nos. 1 to 4 not to open the tender submitted by the petitioner as well as the decision to award tender to the respondent no.5.
Heard Mr. S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Shivan Dessai, for the petitioner, Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Advocate General with Mr. J. A. Lobo, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Bhobe, learned advocate for respondent no.5.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 75 of 2005 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the rejection of its tender and award of contract to respondent no. 5. The court heard the matter on 19th April 2005 and allowed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14
