Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Tender Condition Disqualifying Bidder Based on Blacklisting by Another State. Condition 2.8 of Tender for Supply of Drugs Held Unreasonable and Arbitrary as It Does Not Require Prior Notice or Opportunity of Hearing Before Disqualification.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 112
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and its director, participated in a tender issued by the State of Maharashtra for supply of various drugs including Human Anti-Hemophilic Factor VIII. The tender contained condition 2.8 which disallowed tenders from manufacturers or distributors found guilty of malpractice, misconduct, or blacklisted/debarred by the Public Health Department of Maharashtra or any local authority or other state/central government organization in the past three years. The petitioners received a communication dated 4 May 2017 stating that their company was blacklisted for Anti-Hemophilic Factor VIII by State Health Society, Bihar. The petitioners immediately replied on 5 May 2017 forwarding details and a copy of the order, but the respondents did not consider their explanation. The petitioners challenged condition 2.8 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court held that the condition was unreasonable as it did not provide for any notice or opportunity of hearing before disqualification based on blacklisting by another state. The court read down the condition to require that the bidder be given an opportunity to explain before being disqualified. The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the tender process subject to verification of their eligibility, and to consider their explanation regarding the alleged blacklisting by Bihar.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonableness of Tender Conditions - Tender condition 2.8 disqualifying bidders blacklisted by any other state or central government organization without prior notice or opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court held that such a condition must be read down to require that the bidder be given an opportunity to explain before being disqualified. (Paras 1-5)

B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Blacklisting - Disqualification based on blacklisting by another state without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice. The court directed that the petitioners be allowed to participate in the tender process subject to verification of their eligibility. (Paras 4-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether tender condition 2.8, which disqualifies bidders blacklisted by any other state government or central government organization without providing an opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, read down condition 2.8 to require an opportunity of hearing, and directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the tender process subject to verification of their eligibility and consideration of their explanation regarding the alleged blacklisting by Bihar.

Law Points

  • Tender condition must be reasonable and non-arbitrary
  • Blacklisting by another state without notice to bidder cannot be used to disqualify without opportunity of hearing
  • Principles of natural justice apply to tender disqualification based on past misconduct
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 60

Writ Petition No. 1749 of 2017

2017-08-02

Anoop V. Mohta, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Sinha, Mr. Parth Gokhale and Mr. Akshat Agarwal i/by Khaitan and Co. for the petitioners; Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for respondents/State

Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Rama Prasad

State of Maharashtra, Directorate of Health Services, Government of Maharashtra, Joint Director of Health Services (Procurement Cell), Mumbai

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a tender condition as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought to quash tender condition 2.8 and to be allowed to participate in the tender process.

Filing Reason

The petitioners were disqualified from a tender for supply of drugs based on a blacklisting by State Health Society, Bihar, without being given an opportunity to explain.

Previous Decisions

The petitioners received a communication dated 4 May 2017 stating they were blacklisted by Bihar, and they replied on 5 May 2017, but the respondents did not consider their explanation.

Issues

Whether tender condition 2.8 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Whether the petitioners should be given an opportunity of hearing before being disqualified based on blacklisting by another state.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that condition 2.8 is unreasonable and arbitrary as it does not provide for any notice or opportunity of hearing before disqualification based on blacklisting by another state. The respondents argued that the condition is valid and the petitioners were rightly disqualified based on the blacklisting by Bihar.

Ratio Decidendi

A tender condition that disqualifies a bidder based on blacklisting by another state without providing an opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a condition must be read down to require that the bidder be given an opportunity to explain before being disqualified.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge is restricted to the following tender condition no. 2.8 : ... The Petitioners received the following communication dated 4 May 2017 'Company is blacklisted for Anti-Hemophilic Factor VIII by State Health Society, Bihar.' The Petitioners immediately replied on 5 May 2017 and forwarded the details along with copy of State

Procedural History

The petitioners participated in a tender issued by the State of Maharashtra. They received a communication on 4 May 2017 stating they were blacklisted by Bihar. They replied on 5 May 2017. The respondents did not consider their explanation. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging condition 2.8 of the tender.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals by University and Colleges in Assistant Professor Recruitment Dispute — UGC Regulation 10 Applicable for Awarding Marks for Teaching Experience Under Table 3A.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay examined the legality of referring a cable business dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court considered whether the trial court correctly referred the dispute despite allegat...