Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Surendra Infrastructure (P) Ltd., challenged its disqualification in the technical evaluation of an e-tender for restoration of canal section and lining, and also challenged the qualification of respondent no. 5. The petitioner was disqualified for two reasons: absence of digital signature on documents and failure to submit proof of IP address. The petitioner argued that these were curable defects and that an opportunity should have been given, citing government resolutions. The respondents contended that these were essential conditions and that the petitioner was informed via the online portal. The court held that the disqualification was justified as the conditions were essential. The court also held that a disqualified bidder has no locus standi to challenge the qualification of another bidder. The court found no arbitrariness or mala fides and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Essential Conditions - Digital Signature and IP Address - Requirement of digital signature and IP address proof are essential conditions of tender - Petitioner failed to comply with both - Held that disqualification was justified and not arbitrary (Paras 16-18). B) Tender Law - Curable Defects - Opportunity of Hearing - Government resolutions regarding curable defects and opportunity of hearing are not applicable as the defects were essential - Held that no opportunity was required to be given (Paras 19-20). C) Tender Law - Locus Standi - Disqualified Bidder - A disqualified bidder has no locus standi to challenge the qualification of another bidder - Held that petitioner cannot question eligibility of respondent no. 5 (Para 21). D) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope - Courts should not interfere in tender matters unless there is arbitrariness, mala fides, or unreasonableness - Held that no such grounds were made out (Paras 22-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner for non-compliance with essential conditions of digital signature and IP address submission was arbitrary; whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the qualification of respondent no. 5; whether the court should interfere in tender matters.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Essential conditions of tender
- Digital signature requirement
- IP address requirement
- Curable defects
- Opportunity of hearing
- Locus standi of disqualified bidder
- Judicial review in tender matters
