Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s M.F. Jain Engineers and Contractors, challenged the allotment of a tender work (Tender Code No.36012 dated 2nd November 2013) by respondent no.1, Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., to respondent no.2, M/s Shri Sai Construction. The technical bids were opened on 7th November 2013 and the price bid on 2nd January 2014. Respondent no.2 was found to be the lowest bidder. The petitioner raised objections, which were rejected by respondent no.1 on 18th January 2014. A work order was issued to respondent no.2 on 24th January 2014. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 23rd January 2014, initially challenging the allotment and later amending to challenge the work order. The petitioner argued that respondent no.2 did not meet the qualifying requirements: (1) being a regular contractor of respondent no.1 for similar work, (2) submitting evidence of satisfactory performance of similar work with respondent no.1, and (3) providing average annual financial turnover for the last three years ending 31st March 2013. The petitioner claimed that respondent no.2 submitted documents of a third person (Randeep Khandare) and a certificate from Kamptee Municipal Council for work not similar in nature, and failed to provide turnover for the period 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2013. Respondent no.1 contended that the evaluation was done by a committee of experts and that respondent no.2 satisfied all conditions. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the tender inviting authority is the best judge of the suitability of a bidder and that the court's interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness or mala fides. The court found no arbitrariness in the evaluation and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Evaluation of Techno-Commercial Bids - Qualifying Requirements - The court examined whether respondent no.2 satisfied the qualifying requirements regarding experience and financial turnover. The court held that the tender inviting authority is the best judge of the suitability of a bidder and that the court's interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness or mala fides. (Paras 1-6) B) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that in contractual matters, the court should not substitute its own view for that of the expert body unless the decision is arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any such infirmity. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's objection and the award of tender to respondent no.2 was arbitrary or violative of the tender conditions.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender evaluation
- Techno-commercial bid
- Qualifying requirements
- Judicial review of administrative action
- Scope of interference in contractual matters
