Summary of Judgement
M/s Surendra Infrastructure (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents, challenging its disqualification in a technical evaluation of a tender process. The petitioner contested the rejection, claiming curable defects, and also questioned the qualification of Mahalaxmi Infra (respondent no. 5). The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition, stating that the disqualification was justified due to the absence of essential documents such as the digital signature and IP address. The court also refused to entertain objections regarding the eligibility of respondent no. 5, emphasizing that judicial review in tender matters is limited.
Petitioner:
- M/s. Surendra Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
- Challenged disqualification from the tender process for technical reasons.
- Claimed that the disqualification was arbitrary and rushed without allowing time to rectify defects.
Respondents:
- State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Water Resources & Command Area Development.
- Chief Engineer, Command Area Development Authority.
- Superintending Engineer, Command Area Development Authority.
- Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Irrigation Department.
- Mahalaxmi Infra (Private respondent, competing bidder).
Key Issues:
- Disqualification: Petitioner was disqualified for failing to provide a digital signature and proof of the IP address from which the tender was uploaded.
- Challenge Against Respondent No. 5: Petitioner also claimed that Mahalaxmi Infra failed to meet the tender criteria, including machinery fitness certification and submission of valid turnover documents.
Court Decision:
- The petitioner's failure to submit a digital signature and proof of the IP address was a valid ground for disqualification.
- Judicial review of tender conditions is limited. The court emphasized that tender processes involve commercial decisions and should not be subject to frequent judicial interference unless there is clear evidence of malafides or arbitrariness.
Acts and Sections Discussed:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Under which the petitioner sought judicial review.
- Tender Clauses: Clause 4.1, Clause 2.2.A(V) of the tender document, emphasizing submission of machinery fitness certificates and turnover details.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the conditions related to the digital signature and IP address were essential and non-negotiable for the integrity of the online tender process. Moreover, once the petitioner was disqualified on these valid grounds, it lacked the standing to challenge the qualification of the other bidders.
Case Title: M/s. Surendra Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 64
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 8525 OF 2024
Date of Decision: 2024-09-06