Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. J. M. Mhatre Infra Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the respondent, Chief Engineer, Navy, to reinvite tenders for the work of extension and upgradation of runway with allied operational infrastructure at CGAS, Ratnagiri. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 73 Crores. The original tender notice required experience of having successfully completed similar work, defined as construction of runway work and pavement quality control concrete flexible and rigid pavement for highway, using specified materials. The petitioner submitted a bid on 20 January 2014 along with earnest money deposit and was found to be the lowest bidder (L1) with a bid of Rs. 63,60,08,015.30. The respondent No. 2 pointed out some freak high rates and asked for revised rates, which the petitioner submitted. However, instead of issuing a letter of acceptance, the respondent reinstated the tender. The petitioner alleged that the decision was arbitrary and mala fide, aimed at excluding them because they lacked specific runway construction experience, despite having extensive highway construction experience. The respondent contended that the reissuance was based on CVC guidelines requiring specialised runway construction experience for contracts above Rs. 30 crores. The court heard arguments on the legality of the re-tendering process and the modification of the eligibility criteria. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the final decision of the court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision to reinvite tenders for runway extension and upgradation work at CGAS Ratnagiri was arbitrary, malafide, and violative of the principles of natural justice
Law Points
- tender conditions
- clause 18
- similar work definition
- CVC guidelines
- pre-qualification criteria
- Article 226 Constitution of India
- arbitrariness
- mala fide
- principles of natural justice
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 37
Writ Petition No. 1914 of 2014
C.G. Gawanekar, G.S. Hiranandani, S.R. Rajguru, S.V. Bharucha
M/s. J. M. Mhatre Infra Private Limited (Through its Director Mr. Vijay Mhatre)
Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Through its Secretary, New Delhi) and The Chief Engineer, Navy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision to reinvite tenders for runway extension and upgradation work at CGAS, Ratnagiri.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the decision to reinvite the tender and a direction to the respondents not to take further steps including issuing fresh tender.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, being the lowest bidder (L1) in the original tender, alleged that the respondents arbitrarily changed the eligibility criteria to 'runway works only' to exclude them, despite their experience in highway construction, and that no valid reasons were provided for re-tendering.
Issues
Whether the decision to reinvite the tender was arbitrary and malafide
Whether the modification of the definition of 'similar work' to 'runway works only' was unjustified and excluded the petitioner
Whether the respondents failed to provide reasons for re-tendering, violating principles of natural justice
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Original tender notice allowed similar work including highway construction; petitioner had extensive highway experience; after being L1 and negotiating rates, respondents changed criteria to runway works only without reason, which was mala fide and arbitrary; reliance on Clause 18 was misplaced; CVC guidelines were not produced.
Respondent: As per CVC guidelines, for runway work above Rs. 30 crores, pre-qualification requires experience in similar runway works; the accepting officer noted the petitioner lacked such experience; fresh NIT was issued accordingly; decision was based on technical requirements.
Judgment Excerpts
the similar work means construction of runway work and pavement quality control concrete flexible and rigid pavement for highway using PQC flexural strength 44 kg/cm2 DBM Glass Grid bitumen PMB40 DLC WMM, Gsb of similar magnitude
the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 28th January, 2014 pointed out that rates quoted for certain items mentioned in the list appended with said letter were freak high and requested to reconcile and offer revised rates
the respondents vide letter dated 27th February, 2014 annexure ExhibitC informed the petitioner that the tender for the relevant work at Ratnagiri was reinvited
Director General (work) has decided that the tender shall be reissued with revised notice inviting tender only to those contractors who had executed runway work earlier
similar work means, resurfacing/ construction/extension of runway works only
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition initially for a direction not to allot the tender to a third party. After being informed that the tender was reinvited, the petitioner amended the petition to challenge the decision to reinvite. The respondents filed an affidavit in reply, and the petitioner filed a rejoinder and additional affidavit.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
