Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., challenged the decision of Shivamogga Smart City Limited (respondent No.1) to award a tender to Bharat Electronics Limited (respondent No.2). The petitioner contended that the commercial bid of respondent No.2 contained material deviations from the tender terms, making it non-responsive. The High Court of Karnataka, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, examined the tender documents and the evaluation process. The court noted that the tender committee had considered the deviations and found them to be non-material. The court held that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining whether the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. Applying this standard, the court found no infirmity in the decision of respondent No.1. The court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the level playing field or any discrimination. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the award of the tender to respondent No.2 was upheld.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Commercial Bid Responsiveness - Material Deviation - The court examined whether the commercial bid of the second respondent deviated materially from the tender conditions. The court held that the deviations alleged by the petitioner were not material and did not affect the level playing field. The evaluation by the tender committee was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary. (Paras 4-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review of Tender Process - The court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining whether the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The court found no such infirmity in the present case. (Paras 3, 10) C) Tender Law - Level Playing Field - The court considered the principle of level playing field and held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any discrimination or unfair advantage to the second respondent. The tender conditions were applied uniformly. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the commercial bid of the second respondent contained material deviations from the tender terms, rendering it non-responsive, and whether the first respondent's decision to award the contract to the second respondent was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The decision of the first respondent to award the tender to the second respondent is upheld.
Law Points
- Tender evaluation
- Commercial bid responsiveness
- Material deviation
- Judicial review of tender process
- Level playing field
