Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the rejection of the Technical bid submitted by Banshidhar Construction Private Limited (the Appellant) for a tender issued by Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for a coal mining project. The Appellant participated in the tender process initiated on 16.08.2023, submitting its bid on 29.11.2023. The Technical bids were opened on 04.12.2023, and the Appellant was declared technically disqualified on 06.05.2024 due to non-compliance with Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The Appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition. The Appellant contended that the rejection was arbitrary, especially since the successful bidder, Respondent no. 8, had also failed to submit important documents initially but was allowed to submit them later. The Respondents justified the rejection by stating that the Appellant's Power of Attorney was not valid at the time of signing the bid documents. The Supreme Court analyzed the tender process and found that the Respondent BCCL had acted arbitrarily by rejecting the Appellant's bid while accepting the bid of Respondent no. 8, which was also non-compliant. The Court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the bidding process, particularly for government contracts. Ultimately, the Court set aside the decision of BCCL, allowing the appeal and directing a fresh tender process to be initiated in accordance with the law.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Tender Evaluation - Arbitrary Rejection of Bid - Public Interest - The rejection of the Appellant's Technical bid was arbitrary as the Respondent accepted another bid that did not comply with mandatory requirements, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that the decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias, and the Respondent BCCL failed to justify its actions (Paras 20-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited was justified in rejecting the Technical bid of the Appellant while accepting the Technical bid of another company that did not comply with mandatory requirements.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of BCCL rejecting the Appellant's Technical bid, and directed a fresh tender process to be initiated in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Judicial review
- Tender evaluation
- Eligibility criteria
- Public interest
- Arbitrariness
