Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sahyadri Madhyawarti Sahakari Grahak Sangh Maryadit, a cooperative society, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its tender by the Directorate of Primary Education, Maharashtra State (respondent no.2) under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The tender was for transportation of rice/wheat from FCI godowns to schools and supply of pulses, condiments, oil, and spices in rural schools. The petitioner deposited Rs.25,000 to download the RFT and attended a pre-bid meeting on 7.9.2013. The petitioner alleged technical difficulties in downloading forms due to server issues. On 17.9.2013, the petitioner submitted food samples with a demand draft of Rs.5,000, which were accepted. However, the petitioner's tender was rejected. The petitioner sought quashing of the rejection and direction to consider its tender. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory e-tender conditions. The court held that the rejection was not arbitrary, as the petitioner did not have a fundamental right to claim the contract. The court also rejected the estoppel argument, stating that the government cannot be estopped from enforcing tender conditions. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Government Contracts - Judicial Review - Scope of interference in tender matters is limited to arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias; courts do not sit as appellate authorities over tender decisions. The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory tender conditions and the rejection was not arbitrary. (Paras 1-10) B) Estoppel - Government Contracts - No estoppel against government in contractual matters - The petitioner's claim of estoppel based on acceptance of food samples was rejected as the government cannot be estopped from enforcing tender conditions. (Paras 5-8) C) Cooperative Societies - Mid-Day Meal Scheme - Tender for transportation and supply of food items - The petitioner, a cooperative society, challenged rejection of its tender for non-compliance with e-tender requirements. The court held that the petitioner did not have a fundamental right to claim the contract. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender by the respondent was arbitrary and illegal, and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Government contracts
- Estoppel
- Judicial review of tender matters
- Mandatory compliance with tender conditions
