Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Tender Cancellation by Nagpur University. University's action of cancelling tender due to alleged improper response from sole eligible bidder found arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 94
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Emergedata Services Pvt. Limited, challenged the cancellation of a tender floated by Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University on 13.07.2016 for pre and post examination work (EMS Work). The petitioner was the sole eligible bidder, but the University cancelled the tender on the ground that the petitioner's response was not proper. The petitioner argued that the reason was incorrect and that the University had acted arbitrarily. The Court found that the petitioner's bid was valid and that the University's action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the cancellation, and directed the University to consider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Tender Law - Cancellation of Tender - Arbitrariness - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - The University cancelled the second tender on the ground that the petitioner, the sole eligible bidder, had submitted an improper response. The Court held that the reason given was incorrect and the cancellation was arbitrary, as the petitioner's bid was valid and the University's action lacked transparency and fairness. (Paras 4-6)

B) Tender Law - Level Playing Field - Judicial Review - Article 14 - The Court emphasized that in tender matters, the State must act fairly and without arbitrariness. The University's failure to consider the petitioner's valid bid and its subsequent cancellation of the tender without proper justification violated the principle of level playing field. (Paras 5-7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the cancellation of the second tender by Nagpur University on the ground of no proper response from the sole eligible bidder was 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, quashed the cancellation of the tender dated 13.07.2016, and directed the University to consider the petitioner's bid in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Tender law
  • Arbitrariness
  • Article 14
  • Level playing field
  • Cancellation of tender
  • Judicial review
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 171

WRIT PETITION NO. 6739 OF 2016

2017-08-21

B. P. Dharmadhikari, A. D. Upadhye

Mr. R. R. Shrivastava for petitioner, Mr. P. B. Patil for respondent nos.1 to 4, Mr. A. A. Naik for respondent no.5

Emergedata Services Pvt. Limited

The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University and Others

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging cancellation of tender by University.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of cancellation of tender dated 13.07.2016 and direction to consider its bid.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was sole eligible bidder but University cancelled tender citing improper response.

Issues

Whether the cancellation of the second tender by Nagpur University on the ground of no proper response from the sole eligible bidder was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that it was the only eligible bidder and the reason for cancellation was incorrect. Respondent University argued that the petitioner's response was not proper.

Ratio Decidendi

The cancellation of a tender by a State instrumentality must be based on valid and non-arbitrary reasons. Where the sole eligible bidder's bid is valid, cancelling the tender on an incorrect ground violates Article 14.

Judgment Excerpts

The submission of Mr. Shrivastava, learned Advocate for the petitioner is, as the petitioner was the only eligible bidder for allotment of work in tender dated 13.7.2016, he has been eliminated by giving incorrect or wrong reason. Hence, under the guise of no 'proper response', the tender process was cancelled and...

Procedural History

The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the second tender. On 30.11.2016, the Court subjected the subsequent tender process to the result of this petition. The petition was heard finally on 21.08.2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows MRF Ltd. Appeal on Fringe Benefit Tax for Medical Reimbursement. Medical Reimbursement up to Rs.15,000 per Employee per Annum Not Chargeable to Fringe Benefit Tax Under Section 115WB(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Tender Cancellation by Nagpur University. University's action of cancelling tender due to alleged improper response from sole eligible bidder found arbitrary and violative of Article 14.