Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Vyankatesh Trading Company, a proprietary concern, challenged the rejection of its technical bid submitted in response to a tender notice issued by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) for appointment of a Regular Handling & Transport Contractor at FSD Wardha for two years. The tender was to be submitted online in two parts: technical bid and price bid. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected on 3 August 2016 on the sole ground that the petitioner had not affixed his photograph on a forwarding letter. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioner, respondents, and the intervenor (lowest bidder). The petitioner argued that the rejection was on a hyper-technical ground and that the requirement of affixing a photograph was a minor formality. The respondents contended that the tender conditions required strict compliance. The court, after considering the submissions, held that the non-affixing of a photograph on a forwarding letter was a minor irregularity that did not go to the root of the matter. The court emphasized that in tender matters, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted, especially when the tenderer has substantially complied with the essential conditions. The court allowed the petition, set aside the rejection, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's technical bid as valid and proceed with the tender process in accordance with law. The court also made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any claim for damages or compensation.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Technical Bid Rejection - Minor Irregularity - Non-Affixing of Photograph on Forwarding Letter - The court considered whether rejection of a technical bid for failure to affix a photograph on a forwarding letter was a hyper-technical ground. The court held that such a minor irregularity, which does not affect the substance of the bid, cannot be a valid ground for rejection, especially when the tenderer has otherwise complied with all essential requirements. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's technical bid as valid and proceed with the tender process. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of a technical bid on the ground that the petitioner failed to affix his photograph on a forwarding letter is justified, or whether it amounts to a hyper-technical ground warranting interference by the court.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the communication dated 3.8.2016 rejecting the petitioner's technical bid, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's technical bid as valid and proceed with the tender process in accordance with law. The court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to any claim for damages or compensation.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Technical bid rejection
- Minor irregularity
- Substantial compliance
- Hyper-technical ground
- Public interest
- Fairness in tender process
