Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Ravindra Narayan Choudhari, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging an order dated 17.06.2017 passed by the respondents, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (RCF), a Government of India Undertaking, rejecting the petitioner's tender bearing No. ETENDERHTDONDAICHA201617 on technical grounds. The tender was floated for handling and transportation of fertilizers at Dondaicha Rake point to destinations in Dhule and other districts. The petitioner submitted his tender along with necessary documents, and after a pre-bid meeting on 22.11.2016, the respondents sought additional documents, which the petitioner provided. Subsequently, on 25.03.2017, the respondents sought clarification regarding M/s Hemant Warehousing Corporation, which the petitioner clarified. Despite this, the tender was rejected on 17.06.2017 on technical grounds. The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary, without application of mind, and violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given. The respondents filed an affidavit-in-reply, but the petitioner did not admit its contents. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the rejection order did not disclose any reasons and appeared to be a non-speaking order. The court held that the respondents had not applied their mind and had violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's tender afresh after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The court also directed that the reconsideration be completed within four weeks from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Tender Rejection - The court examined whether the rejection of a tender on technical grounds without proper application of mind and without affording an opportunity of hearing was arbitrary and illegal. Held that the rejection was set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the tender afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender on technical grounds by the respondents was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2017, and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's tender afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The reconsideration was to be completed within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- non-application of mind
- tender rejection
- technical grounds
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Constitution of India
