Court Upholds Disqualification in Tender Petition

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the disqualification of the petitioner from a tender for a helium gas recovery compressor. The court found the disqualification justified due to non-compliance with tender conditions, specifically regarding GST deviations. Emphasizing limited interference in tender matters, the court referenced Supreme Court judgments and concluded the decision was fair and reasonable, not arbitrary. Judicial review in tender matters should ensure lawful decision-making, protecting public interest. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification of the petitioner in respect of the tender.
2. Compliance with tender conditions.
3. Judicial review of administrative decisions in tender matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disqualification of the petitioner in respect of the tender:
The petitioner, M/s. Indian Compressors Ltd., challenged the disqualification from Tender No. 33227 for the supply, installation, and commissioning of a helium gas recovery compressor. The petitioner submitted their bid on 22/12/2018, but was disqualified by the respondents on 06/03/2019 before the price bid was opened, citing deviations from the tender conditions. The petitioner argued that their bid was in line with the purchase manual of the Directorate of Purchase and Stores, Department of Atomic Energy, and claimed the disqualification was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Compliance with tender conditions:
The respondents contended that the petitioner deviated from the tender conditions, specifically Clause 45.1 of e-DPS-0-103 version 2018-2, which stated that non-acceptance of the terms and conditions would result in outright rejection. The price bid template instructed that GST should not be indicated in the price bid, and deviations such as indicating GST at 18% and specifying the price basis as ex-works led to the petitioner's disqualification. The petitioner admitted the mistake in an email dated 18/03/2019, explaining the oversight in indicating GST at 18% in the techno-commercial bid, contrary to the applicable 5% GST.

3. Judicial review of administrative decisions in tender matters:
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in tender matters, referencing several Supreme Court judgments. The court cited the principles from cases like Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Narendra Damodardas Modi, Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, and Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, which underscore judicial restraint in commercial decisions and the necessity of evaluating the decision-making process for mala fides, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness. The court concluded that the respondents' decision to disqualify the petitioner was fair, reasonable, and in strict conformity with the tender conditions, and thus not arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the petitioner's disqualification was justified due to non-compliance with tender conditions. The decision-making process was not found to be arbitrary or mala fide, and the court reiterated the principle that judicial review in tender matters should be limited to ensuring the decision-making process was lawful and not to protect private interests at the expense of public interest. No order as to costs was made.

---