Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Padgilwar Agro Industries, a registered partnership firm, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acceptance of the bid of respondent no.3, Ratnagiri Impex Private Limited, by respondent nos.1 and 2 (the Director of Sericulture and the State of Maharashtra) in a tender for Engine oriented Mulberry Pruner/shoot/Brush cutting machines. The tender required, under clause 7 of the technical bid, submission of a commercial test report from a Central Government or recognized institute or any agriculture university of India or State Government recognized institute. The petitioner submitted such a report, but respondent no.3 submitted only a physical report dated 28.01.2015 from the manufacturer and a practical field test report dated 24.01.2011 from Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi. The court found that the field test report was not a commercial test report and did not cover performance parameters. The court held that the condition was mandatory and respondent no.3's bid was non-compliant. The court set aside the acceptance of respondent no.3's bid and directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law. The court also noted that interim orders had been passed to prevent the lapse of grants.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Mandatory Condition - Commercial Test Report - Clause 7 of Technical Bid - The tender required submission of a commercial test report from a Central Government or recognized institute or agriculture university. The petitioner complied, but respondent no.3 submitted only a manufacturer's report and a field test report from Birsa Agricultural University, which was not a commercial test report. The court held that the condition was mandatory and non-compliance rendered the bid invalid. (Paras 3-5) B) Judicial Review - Administrative Action - Tender Process - The court can interfere if the decision-making process is arbitrary or irrational. Here, the acceptance of a non-compliant bid was arbitrary and set aside. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acceptance of the bid of respondent no.3 by respondent nos.1 and 2 is vitiated because respondent no.3 did not fulfill the mandatory condition of submitting a commercial test report from a recognized institute as required under clause 7 of the technical bid.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the acceptance of respondent no.3's bid, and directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Mandatory conditions
- Commercial test report
- Essential condition
- Judicial review of administrative action
