The writ petition challenging the award of a tender to Konark Infrastructure Ltd. for the daily sweeping, cleaning, and waste management services in Zone No. 2 of the Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation. The petitioners argued that the award was improper due to procedural and eligibility issues related to the certification of the selected bidder, Respondent No. 4.

1. Introduction (Para 1-3):

The petition challenges the decision to award a tender for sweeping and cleaning services in Zone No. 2 of Mira Bhaindar. The petitioners allege that Respondent No. 4 was improperly declared eligible due to deficiencies in their bid documents.

2. Tender Process and Conditions (Para 4-5):

The tender, issued on 6 October 2022, was for sweeping, cleaning, and waste management services, with a project value of Rs. 91.92 crores. Respondent No. 4's eligibility was based on certificates related to its past work with Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation.

3. Objections Raised by Petitioners (Para 6-7):

The petitioners objected to Respondent No. 4's certificates, arguing they were inadequate and failed to meet tender requirements regarding past experience and work completion.

4. Clarification and Corrective Actions (Para 8-10):

Respondent No. 4 submitted clarifications, including a Chartered Accountant’s certificate with a Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) after the initial submission. Petitioners claimed this was fraudulent.

5. Legal Arguments and Court's Analysis (Para 19-22):

The court discussed the scope of judicial review in tender matters, emphasizing that interference should be minimal unless there is arbitrariness, mala fides, or a clear breach of rules.

6. Public Interest and Technical Deviations (Para 26-27):

The court highlighted the importance of balancing procedural fairness with public interest. Minor deviations, such as the late submission of the UDIN, did not warrant cancellation of the tender since it did not prejudice the overall fairness.

7. Judgment and Conclusion (Para 42-47):

The court concluded that Respondent No. 4 substantially complied with the tender requirements. Minor procedural lapses were not sufficient to nullify the contract award, and the decision to award the tender was upheld as it aligned with public interest.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petition was filed under this provision for judicial review of the administrative decision.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that minor procedural irregularities in the tender process do not necessarily invalidate a bid, especially when the public interest is served, and there is no evidence of mala fides. The tendering authority's discretion, particularly in matters of technical clarifications, must be respected unless clear arbitrariness or unfairness is demonstrated.

Subjects:

Public Tender, Administrative Law, Judicial Review

Public Procurement, Tender Process, Waste Management, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Minor Deviation