Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Khare & Tarkunde Infrastructure Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of its tender by the State of Maharashtra for construction of a high level bridge. The respondents had invited tenders, and six bidders submitted bids. The petitioner's Envelope No.1 was opened on 21.10.2014, but it was not informed of its qualification status. On 04.11.2014, the petitioner received an email stating it was disqualified for not uploading the scanned copy of the Registration of Firm from original. The petitioner immediately made a representation on 05.11.2014. The court considered whether the rejection was arbitrary. The court noted that the petitioner had the original registration certificate and had uploaded other documents. The court held that the requirement to upload a scanned copy was a procedural formality and that the rejection was arbitrary. The court allowed the petition, quashed the disqualification, and directed the respondents to open the petitioner's financial bid and consider it along with other bidders.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Arbitrary Rejection - Non-upload of Scanned Copy - Petitioner's tender was rejected for not uploading scanned copy of Registration of Firm from original, though original was available - Court held that rejection was arbitrary and directed opening of financial bid - Held that requirement of uploading scanned copy was a procedural formality and substantial compliance was sufficient (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender for non-upload of scanned copy of Registration of Firm from original, when the original was available, is arbitrary and illegal.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 04.11.2014 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to open the financial bid of the petitioner and consider it along with other bidders.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Arbitrary rejection
- Non-upload of scanned copy
- Substantial compliance
- Public works contract
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 115
Writ Petition No. 5919/2014
B.R. Gavai, V.M. Deshpande
Mr. A.A. Naik for Petitioner, Mrs. B.H. Dangre for Respondents 1 to 4, Mr. V.R. Thakur for Respondent no.5
Khare & Tarkunde Infrastructure Private Limited
The State of Maharashtra, The Chief Engineer, The Superintending Engineer, The Executive Engineer, M.B. Gharpuray Engineers and Contractors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of tender in public works contract.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that petitioner is eligible to participate in tender and direction to open financial bid.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's tender was rejected for non-upload of scanned copy of Registration of Firm from original, though original was available.
Issues
Whether rejection of tender for non-upload of scanned copy of Registration of Firm from original is arbitrary when original is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that it had the original registration certificate and the requirement to upload scanned copy was a procedural formality.
Respondents argued that the tender conditions required uploading of scanned copy and non-compliance led to disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi
Rejection of tender for non-upload of scanned copy of a document, when the original is available, is arbitrary and illegal. Procedural requirements must not be used to defeat substantive rights.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of its tender at the stage of qualifying to compete in the financial bid.
It is the case of the petitioner that though Envelope No.1 was opened on 21.10.2014, the petitioner was not informed about the qualification or disqualification of the petitioner.
The petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 04.11.2014 is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed writ petition on 11.11.2014 after receiving disqualification email on 04.11.2014. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 05.12.2014.
