Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sudha Facility Management Service, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioner challenged the rejection of its bid in a tender process issued by the Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. for cleaning and washing of buses for the period from 1 December 2015 to 30 November 2016. The petitioner had submitted its bid on 14 November 2015, along with two other contractors. The last date for submission was extended to 16 November 2015, and the bid opening was scheduled for 18 January 2016. The petitioner claimed to be the lowest bidder for most rates and alleged compliance with all tender conditions. However, the Corporation rejected the petitioner's bid as non-responsive on the ground that the scanned copy of the earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 75,000 in the form of a demand draft was not uploaded along with the bid. The petitioner contended that the EMD was submitted separately and that the rejection was arbitrary. Additionally, the Corporation cancelled the earlier tender and initiated a fresh bidding process on 25 January 2016, which the petitioner also challenged. The court examined the tender conditions, which required the EMD to be uploaded as part of the bid documents. The court noted that the petitioner failed to comply with this mandatory condition, and therefore the rejection was justified. Regarding the cancellation of the tender and fresh bidding, the court held that the Corporation, as the authority, has the discretion to cancel the tender and invite fresh bids, and such decision is not open to judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide. The court found no such arbitrariness in the present case. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the fresh bidding process.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Non-Responsive Bid - Earnest Money Deposit - The petitioner's bid was rejected as non-responsive because the scanned demand draft for earnest money was not uploaded, violating tender conditions. The court held that the tender conditions are binding and the rejection was not arbitrary. (Paras 5-6) B) Tender Law - Cancellation of Tender - Fresh Bidding - The Corporation cancelled the earlier tender and initiated a fresh bidding process. The court held that the Corporation has the right to cancel the tender and invite fresh bids, and such decision is not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary or mala fide. (Paras 7-8) C) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope - The court held that in tender matters, the court's interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner failed to establish any such grounds. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid as non-responsive for failure to upload a valid earnest money deposit was arbitrary, and whether the cancellation of the earlier tender and initiation of a fresh bidding process was lawful.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's bid as non-responsive and the Corporation's decision to cancel the tender and invite fresh bids.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Non-responsive bid
- Earnest money deposit
- Judicial review of tender process
- Cancellation of tender
- Fresh bidding
