Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Adinath Electricals, a proprietorship firm represented by Smt. Rekha Shiyal, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure-H) passed by the 1st respondent, the Assistant General Manager (E.E)-III of the Airport Authority of India, Mumbai, and to direct the 1st respondent not to implement the said order. The petitioner had participated in a tender proceeding pursuant to a Tender Notice dated 04.02.2014 (Annexure-B) issued by the 1st respondent for the supply of various sizes of LT cables at NAC Mumbai. The tender notice prescribed pre-qualification criteria, including that the tender must be by the manufacturer or their authorized dealer/distributor. The petitioner submitted a bid but did not submit the required manufacturer's authorization from Havells India Ltd., the manufacturer of the cables. The 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's bid on the ground of non-submission of the authorization. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the condition was not mandatory or that it had substantially complied. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, Sri Vittala Shetty P., examined the tender conditions and found that the pre-qualification requirement was clear and unambiguous. The court held that in tender matters, conditions must be strictly complied with, and the rejection was proper. The court further held that under writ jurisdiction, it cannot sit as an appellate authority over tender decisions unless there is arbitrariness or mala fides, which was not established. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Pre-qualification Criteria - Strict Compliance - Tender Notice dated 04.02.2014 required manufacturer's authorization for supply of LT cables - Petitioner failed to submit authorization from manufacturer Havells India Ltd. - Held that tender conditions must be strictly complied with and rejection was proper (Paras 1-3). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Tender Decisions - Scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Court held that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over tender decisions unless there is arbitrariness or mala fides - No such case made out - Petition dismissed (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender bid for non-submission of manufacturer's authorization was valid and whether the court should interfere under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's tender bid and declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Tender law
- strict compliance with tender conditions
- pre-qualification criteria
- judicial review of tender decisions
- scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
