High Court upholds tender rejection for item 1, directs reconsideration for item 2 based on technical specifications.

Process Systems and Ors. Versus Agency for Non-Conventional Energy and Rural Technology (ANERT) and Ors.

Process Systems and Ors. Versus Agency for Non-Conventional Energy and Rural Technology (ANERT) and Ors. - AIR 2000 Ker 209 Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioners' tender for items 1 and 2.
2. Compliance with the Kerala State Stores Purchase Manual.
3. Grounds for refusal of injunction by the lower courts.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions in tender processes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the petitioners' tender for items 1 and 2:
The petitioners contended that their rates for solar lanterns (item 1) and solar home lighting systems (item 2) were lower than those of the second respondent. However, the petitioners did not provide the required test certificate with their tender for item 1, as mandated by Clause 10 of Ext. A1. The respondents justified the rejection, stating that the petitioners' tender was incomplete without the test certificate, which was only furnished after the last date for submission. For item 2, the respondents argued that the petitioners failed to include technical specifications in Envelope No. 2. The court upheld the rejection for item 1 due to non-compliance with the tender requirements but found the rejection for item 2 unjustified, directing the first respondent to reconsider the petitioners' tender for item 2 on its merits.

2. Compliance with the Kerala State Stores Purchase Manual:
The petitioners argued that the first respondent, being a government agency, was bound to follow the Kerala State Stores Purchase Manual. The court acknowledged that while the Manual provides general guidelines, the first respondent had the authority to prescribe specific procedures suitable for the services required. The court found no mala fides in the first respondent's actions, noting that the petitioners were awarded the contract for item 4, which did not require a test certificate, indicating no bias against them.

3. Grounds for refusal of injunction by the lower courts:
The petitioners sought an injunction to restrain the first respondent from finalizing the contract for items 1 and 2. Both the Munsiffs Court and the District Court dismissed the petitioners' application for injunction. The High Court reviewed the orders and found no illegality or irregularity in the lower courts' decisions. The court emphasized that judicial intervention in commercial transactions should be limited to cases involving substantial public interest or mala fides, neither of which was evident in this case.

4. Judicial review of administrative decisions in tender processes:
The court referred to the principles established in Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Tata Cellular v. Union of India, highlighting the limitations of judicial review in administrative matters. The court's role is to ensure that the decision-making process is fair and not arbitrary, rather than substituting its judgment for that of the administrative authority. The court found that the first respondent's decision-making process was justified and within its discretion, particularly given the petitioners' failure to meet the tender requirements for item 1.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the rejection of the petitioners' tender for item 1 due to non-compliance with the requirement to submit a test certificate by the specified date. However, the court directed the first respondent to reconsider the petitioners' tender for item 2 on its merits, as the technical specifications were included in Envelope No. 3, and the petitioners should not be penalized for any confusion arising from conflicting instructions in the tender document. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the limitations of judicial review in matters involving commercial transactions and administrative discretion.