Court upholds authority to introduce global e-tender system, petition challenging terms dismissed.

The court upheld respondent No.1's authority to introduce the global e-tender system and its clauses to safeguard commercial interests. It ruled that the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the terms meant for buyers, dismissing allegations of forum shopping. Emphasizing limited judicial review in tender matters, the court found respondent No.1's actions lawful and declined to intervene. The petition challenging the e-tender system was dismissed, with costs left to each party.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the introduction of e-auction and global e-tender system by respondent No.1.
2. Validity of clauses (a) to (d) of condition (i) in the "Technical Bid" of the global e-tender.
3. Locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the terms and conditions of the global e-tender.
4. Allegations of forum shopping and misleading the court by the petitioners.
5. Scope of judicial review in tender and contractual matters.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the introduction of e-auction and global e-tender system by respondent No.1:

The dispute arose from a meeting of Chrome Ore Producers on 10.7.2012, where respondent No.1 introduced an e-auction method for selling chrome ore, which was challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners proposed a global tender system instead. Respondent No.1 later introduced a global e-tender system for export, as communicated on 20.7.2012. The petitioners were aggrieved by the introduction of certain clauses in the "Technical Bid" of the global e-tender, which they claimed impeded competition.

2. Validity of clauses (a) to (d) of condition (i) in the "Technical Bid" of the global e-tender:

The petitioners argued that clauses (a) to (d) of condition (i) in the "Technical Bid" impeded competition and were not necessary for securing revenue. They contended that these clauses should not prevent them from exporting their cargo. The court noted that clauses (a) to (d) were introduced to safeguard the commercial interests of respondent No.1 and were within its authority. The court found that these clauses were not arbitrary or illegal and were designed to ensure that the buyers had the capacity and resources to fulfill the contracts.

3. Locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the terms and conditions of the global e-tender:

The respondents argued that the petitioners, as sellers, did not have the locus standi to challenge the terms and conditions of the global e-tender, which were meant for buyers. The court agreed, stating that the petitioners could not fight a proxy battle and that the terms and conditions were designed to safeguard the financial interests of respondent No.1 as a canalizing agent.

4. Allegations of forum shopping and misleading the court by the petitioners:

The respondents accused the petitioners of forum shopping and misleading the court, given that a similar petition was pending in the Calcutta High Court. The court noted that the petition in Calcutta had become infructuous due to the change in policy and that the present petition was a challenge to the new policy. Therefore, the court did not find merit in the allegations of forum shopping.

5. Scope of judicial review in tender and contractual matters:

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., emphasizing that judicial review of administrative action is limited to checking for arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides. The court reiterated that it would not interfere with policy decisions unless they were arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or actuated by bias. The court found that respondent No.1's actions were within its domain and aimed at safeguarding its commercial interests.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that respondent No.1 acted within its authority to lay down terms and conditions for safeguarding its interests in contracts with buyers and sellers. The petitioners' challenge to the global e-tender system and its clauses was dismissed, and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

---