Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Mana Constructions, challenged the allotment of two construction contracts by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Katol, to respondent No. 2, M/s. Shriram Construction Company. The tenders were for construction of Grain Auction Halls and Traders Shops in the Principal Market Yard. In both tenders, respondent No. 2 was the lowest bidder, while the petitioner was either at Sr. No. 4 or just above respondent No. 2. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 had submitted incomplete or discrepant documents, including issues with the validity of the tender period and the submission of certain certificates. The court examined the tender documents and the evaluation process. It noted that the tender committee had considered the objections raised by the petitioner and found them to be without merit. The court held that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited and that courts should not sit as appellate authorities over the decisions of expert committees. Unless there is clear arbitrariness or mala fides, the court will not interfere. The court found that the tender process was fair and transparent, and the decision to award the contract to the lowest bidder was justified. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim stay on issuance of work orders was vacated.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Courts should not interfere in tender matters unless there is clear arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. The court's role is limited to ensuring that the process is fair and transparent. (Paras 5-6) B) Tender Law - Technical Evaluation - Discrepancies - Minor technical discrepancies in tender documents do not necessarily disqualify a bidder if the tender inviting authority has considered them and found them acceptable. The court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the expert committee. (Paras 7-8) C) Tender Law - Lowest Bidder - Award of Contract - The principle of awarding contract to the lowest bidder is not absolute and can be deviated from for valid reasons. However, if the lowest bidder is otherwise qualified, the contract should normally be awarded to him. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with the tender process where the lowest bidder was awarded the contract despite alleged discrepancies in the tender documents submitted by the bidder.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order staying issuance of work orders stands vacated. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Judicial review of administrative action
- Scope of interference in tender matters
- Principle of lowest bidder
- Technical evaluation in tenders
