Court upholds withdrawal of RFP for Bird Radar Systems, emphasizes fairness in bidding process.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the withdrawal of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Bird Detection and Monitoring Radar Systems. It held that the withdrawal was justified to maintain fairness among bidders and prevent unfair advantages. The court found the Ministry of Defence's actions compliant with Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP) 2011 and within its discretion. It emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and upheld the MoD's decision, ruling out any violation of the petitioner's rights.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of withdrawal of the Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 30.04.2012.
2. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Compliance with Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP) 2011.
4. Allegations of mala fides and bias in issuing a fresh Request for Information (RFI).
5. Evaluation of bids in multiple currencies.
6. Scope of judicial review in tender matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Withdrawal of the RFP dated 30.04.2012:
The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of the RFP issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for procurement of Bird Detection and Monitoring Radar Systems (BDMRS). The petitioner argued that the withdrawal was non-transparent, arbitrary, and without explanation, violating Article 14 of the Constitution and DPP-2011. The MoD contended that the withdrawal was due to non-compliance of bids with the RFP terms and the need to maintain a level playing field among vendors. The court found the withdrawal justified on the grounds that the petitioner’s bid, if accepted, would have resulted in unfairness to other Indian bidders due to currency hedging advantages.

2. Alleged Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that the withdrawal of the RFP was arbitrary and violated the right to equality and fair treatment under Article 14. The court held that the government has the discretion to withdraw an RFP with valid reasons and that no vested right accrues to the lowest bidder. The court found that the MoD’s decision was based on legitimate grounds, including the need to ensure fairness among bidders.

3. Compliance with Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP) 2011:
The petitioner contended that the MoD violated DPP-2011 by delaying the procurement process and not awarding the contract to the lowest bidder. The court noted that the DPP-2011 timeline is essential but deviations are permissible for recorded reasons. The court found that the MoD’s actions were in compliance with the provisions of DPP-2011, as the petitioner’s bid did not meet the commercial requirements specified in the RFP.

4. Allegations of Mala Fides and Bias in Issuing a Fresh RFI:
The petitioner alleged that the fresh RFI was issued to favor a rival bidder, OIS-AT, and that the MoD acted with bias. The court found no evidence of mala fides or bias. It noted that the issuance of a new RFI was a legitimate exercise of the MoD’s discretion to procure the best available technology and that the petitioner was not at a disadvantage as it participated in the new RFI process.

5. Evaluation of Bids in Multiple Currencies:
The petitioner argued that its bid, submitted in multiple currencies, was compliant with DPP-2011 and MoF Policy, 2006. The MoD contended that allowing bids in multiple currencies would give undue advantages to certain bidders and vitiate the level playing field. The court upheld the MoD’s decision, stating that the requirement for bids in Indian Rupees was to ensure fairness among all bidders and that the petitioner’s bid in multiple currencies was rightly rejected.

6. Scope of Judicial Review in Tender Matters:
The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, emphasizing that it does not sit as an appellate authority to review the merits of administrative decisions. The court’s role is to ensure that the decision-making process is legal, fair, and free from arbitrariness or bias. The court found that the MoD’s decision to withdraw the RFP and issue a fresh RFI was based on valid reasons and did not warrant judicial interference.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the withdrawal of the RFP dated 30.04.2012 was justified and not arbitrary. The court found that the MoD’s actions were in compliance with DPP-2011 and that the petitioner’s rights were not violated. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and upheld the MoD’s discretion to withdraw the RFP and issue a fresh RFI.

---