Court upholds tender process validity, emphasizes fairness, and reasonableness in judicial review

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the tender process. It found the process fair and transparent, with no evidence of bias or procedural impropriety. The acceptance of respondent No.3's bid was deemed valid despite minor deviations, as they did not impact fairness. Judicial review in tender matters was emphasized to focus on fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to the law, with only clear illegality warranting intervention. The petitioner's waiver of the right to challenge the decision was noted, having participated in the process without objection initially.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the tender process and compliance with the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) conditions.
2. Evaluation and acceptance of technical and commercial bids.
3. Allegations of bias and procedural impropriety.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions in tender processes.
5. Waiver and estoppel in the context of challenging tender decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Tender Process and Compliance with NIT Conditions:
The petitioner argued that the respondent No.3 did not submit valid documents as per the NIT requirements, including the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) in the specified format, Professional Tax, Service Tax Registration, and other essential documents. The petitioner contended that the documents submitted by respondent No.3 were in the names of different entities (Unit Trust of India Investor Services Limited and UTI Technology Services Limited), which were not valid for the tender process.

2. Evaluation and Acceptance of Technical and Commercial Bids:
The technical bids of the petitioner and respondent No.3 were evaluated by the Technical Committee, which found both bids technically suitable. The commercial bids were then opened, revealing that respondent No.3 quoted a lower price (Rs.4,62,000/-) compared to the petitioner (Rs.5,04,000/-). The petitioner challenged the acceptance of respondent No.3's bid on the grounds of non-compliance with the NIT conditions.

3. Allegations of Bias and Procedural Impropriety:
The petitioner alleged that the Technical Committee's decision was biased and that the presence of a non-member (Deputy Secretary, Finance Department) in the Committee was improper. However, the court found no evidence of mala fides or prejudice against the petitioner. The court noted that the majority decision of the Committee was valid and that the presence of the Deputy Secretary did not invalidate the Committee's decision.

4. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions in Tender Processes:
The court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining the decision-making process for fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to the law. The court cited several precedents, including Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal v. Union of India and IRCTC v. Doshion Veolia Water Solutions (P) Ltd., to highlight that non-compliance with essential conditions can lead to rejection of a tender. However, minor deviations or technical irregularities may be overlooked if they do not result in substantial prejudice.

5. Waiver and Estoppel in the Context of Challenging Tender Decisions:
The court held that the petitioner, by not raising objections at the earliest opportunity and by participating in the tender process, had waived the right to challenge the decision later. The court referenced Supdt. of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust to explain the principles of waiver and estoppel, noting that the petitioner could not now contest the approval of respondent No.3's technical bid after having accepted the process initially.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the tender process was conducted fairly and transparently. The court found no evidence of bias or procedural impropriety by the Technical Committee. The acceptance of respondent No.3's bid was deemed valid, as the deviations in the submission were considered minor and did not affect the overall fairness of the process. The court reiterated that judicial intervention in tender matters should be exercised with caution and only in cases of clear illegality or arbitrariness.

---