Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kartikay Exploration and Mining Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged the award of a tender by the National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (respondent no. 1) to M/s. Shivganga Drillers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 2) for drilling a 3000 m deep borehole in the Koyna Region, Maharashtra. The petitioner had submitted its bid on 14.07.2015 and provided clarifications on 07.08.2015 and subsequently via email. However, on 05.10.2015, the petitioner learned from outside sources that its bid was rejected and respondent no. 2 was declared successful. The petitioner alleged that it was not informed of the rejection and that the rejection was arbitrary. The court examined the evaluation process and found that the technical evaluation committee had rejected the petitioner's rig on the ground that it was not a 'drilling rig' but a 'crawler mounted rig', which was not a valid requirement under the tender conditions. The committee failed to consider the clarifications and documents submitted by the petitioner, including a certificate from the manufacturer. The court held that the rejection was arbitrary and suffered from non-application of mind. The court quashed the letter of award (LOA) dated 30.09.2015 issued to respondent no. 2 and directed respondent no. 1 to reconsider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law. The court also directed that the price bid of the petitioner be opened and considered if found technically qualified.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Non-Application of Mind - The court examined whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid was arbitrary and without proper consideration of clarifications submitted by the petitioner. The court held that the evaluation committee failed to consider the clarifications and documents provided by the petitioner, rendering the decision arbitrary and liable to be set aside. (Paras 4-10) B) Tender Law - Arbitrariness - Technical Evaluation - The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's rig was based on a non-existent requirement and that the committee did not apply its mind to the clarifications. The court held that such arbitrary action cannot be sustained and directed the respondent no. 1 to reconsider the petitioner's bid. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid and the award of the tender to respondent no. 2 was arbitrary and suffered from non-application of mind.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the letter of award dated 30.09.2015 issued to respondent no. 2, and directed respondent no. 1 to reconsider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law, including opening the price bid if found technically qualified.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Judicial review of administrative action
- Non-application of mind
- Arbitrariness
- Natural justice
