NVS technical bid rejection upheld as administrative tender decisions cannot be substituted without mala fide allegations

The SC set aside the HC's order that had allowed a writ petition challenging rejection of a technical bid by NVS for failing to meet past performance criteria. The SC held that HC's interference was unjustified absent allegations of mala fide or bias. Administrative authorities' tender decisions cannot be substituted by courts merely because they appear implausible. The tender terms were clear and specific, requiring supply of 60% bid quantity in preceding three financial years. Other bidders understood these requirements. HC erroneously applied inappropriate legal principles and exceeded judicial review boundaries in contractual matters. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.
2. Interpretation of the term "same or similar Category Products" in the tender document.
3. Validity of the High Court's interference with the tender inviting authority's decision.
4. Consistency and clarity of the reasons provided by the tender inviting authority for rejecting the bid.
5. Application of the doctrine of 'Contra proferentem' and other relevant legal principles in tender interpretation.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi:
The High Court of Delhi's jurisdiction was challenged on the grounds that all material events took place in Uttar Pradesh, and the tender inviting authority was also in Uttar Pradesh. However, the High Court rejected this objection, noting that the tender inviting authority, NVS, operated under the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi. This aspect was not emphasized before the Supreme Court, and it was left at that.

2. Interpretation of the term "same or similar Category Products" in the tender document:
The crux of the matter was whether "Smart Phones" could be considered as "same or similar Category Products" as "Tablets" under the tender conditions. The High Court held that "Smart Phones" and "Tablets" were similar category products, emphasizing that both are electronic products with similar functionalities and are often treated alike in various tenders by different government agencies. The High Court criticized the tender inviting authority for giving a restrictive interpretation to the term "similar Category Products" and concluded that the intention was to provide maximum competition.

3. Validity of the High Court's interference with the tender inviting authority's decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the author of the tender document is the best person to interpret its terms, and judicial interference is warranted only if the decision is arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The Court found that NVS's interpretation of the tender terms, which excluded "Smart Phones" from the "similar Category Products," was neither absurd nor irrational. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's detailed analysis of the terms and its substitution of its interpretation over that of the tender inviting authority was unwarranted.

4. Consistency and clarity of the reasons provided by the tender inviting authority for rejecting the bid:
The Supreme Court found no inconsistency in the reasons provided by NVS for rejecting the bid. Initially, the rejection was stated as a "technical specification mismatch," which was later elaborated to clarify that "Smart Phones" were not considered similar to "Tablets." The Court held that mere elaboration of reasons does not imply inconsistency.

5. Application of the doctrine of 'Contra proferentem' and other relevant legal principles in tender interpretation:
The High Court applied the doctrine of 'Contra proferentem,' which resolves ambiguities in favor of the party that did not draft the document. However, the Supreme Court found this doctrine inapplicable in the context of tender documents, emphasizing that the tender inviting authority's interpretation should prevail unless it is shown to be perverse or mala fide. The Court also referred to the principles laid down in various decisions, reinforcing that the tender inviting authority's interpretation should be respected unless it fails on grounds of irrationality, unreasonableness, or bias.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court's interference was based on irrelevant considerations and that the tender inviting authority's decision was not arbitrary or irrational. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed, and the appeals by NVS and the successful bidder were allowed.

---