Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Category I contractor, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of his technical bid submitted pursuant to a tender notification dated 11.11.2015 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner initially sought a declaration that his bid was technically responsive and a direction to open his financial bid. During the pendency of the petition, the first respondent rejected the technical bid on 28.01.2016, and the petitioner filed an application (IA No.2/2016) to amend the petition to quash the rejection order and the communication dated 14.01.2016. The court considered the amendment but found that the rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish required documents as per the tender conditions. The court held that the evaluation by the tender committee was in accordance with the terms of the tender and not arbitrary. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference under Articles 226 and 227. The court also noted that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions, none of which were established.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Technical Bid Evaluation - Non-Responsive Bid - The petitioner's technical bid was rejected for not furnishing the required documents as per tender conditions. The court held that the evaluation by the tender committee was based on the terms of the tender and not arbitrary. (Paras 1-3)
B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope under Articles 226 and 227 - The court reiterated that interference in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. No such grounds were made out. (Paras 1-3)
C) Tender Law - Amendment of Petition - Subsequent Events - The petitioner sought to amend the petition to challenge the rejection order. The court considered the amendment but found no merit in the challenge. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive by the respondent-authority was arbitrary and liable to be set aside, and whether the petitioner is entitled to have his financial bid opened.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive and found no grounds for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Technical bid evaluation
- Non-responsive bid
- Judicial review of tender process
- Scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (09) 30
Writ Petition No.2243/2016 (GM-TEN)
Sri. Udaya Holla, Sr. Counsel; Sri. Vivek Holla; Sri. Chandrashekar S, Advs. for M/S. Holla & Holla (for petitioner); Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, Sr. Counsel for Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, Adv. for M/S. Shetty & Hegde Assts. (for R1 & R2); Sri. Jayakumar S Patil, Sr. Counsel for Sri. Pradeep Nayak, Adv. (for R3)
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited, The Executive Engineer, KBJNL MLI Division-04, M/S. SNC Power Corporation Pvt Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of technical bid in a tender process.
Remedy Sought
Initially, declaration that petitioner's bid was technically responsive and direction to open financial bid; later, quashing of rejection order dated 28.01.2016 and communication dated 14.01.2016.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's technical bid was rejected as non-responsive by the respondent-authority.
Issues
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive was arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his financial bid opened.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his bid was technically responsive and rejection was arbitrary.
Respondents contended that the bid was non-responsive due to failure to furnish required documents as per tender conditions.
Ratio Decidendi
The evaluation of technical bids by the tender committee must be based on the terms of the tender. Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. In this case, the rejection was in accordance with tender conditions and not arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner initially has approached this Court in this writ petition praying that his bid be declared as responsive and direct the respondents to open the financial bid submitted pursuant to the tender notification dated 11.11.2015.
During the pendency of the petition, in view of the subsequent developments, the petitioner has filed an application in IA No.2/2016 seeking to amend the petition and in that regard an additional prayer is sought for quashing the order/decision of the first respondent in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner uploaded on 28.01.2016 as also the communication dated 14.01.2016 at Annexures-R and X respectively.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition on an unspecified date challenging the rejection of his technical bid. During pendency, the rejection order was passed, and the petitioner filed an amendment application (IA No.2/2016) to challenge the rejection. The court considered the amendment and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
