Court upholds respondent's bid in tender challenge, emphasizing limited judicial review

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection of respondent No.4 as the L-1 bidder, finding no flaw in Prasar Bharti's decision-making process. It held that respondent No.4's choice to absorb the tax component was permissible under the tender terms, rejecting the petitioner's argument that it disadvantaged their bid. The court emphasized limited judicial review in tender matters, citing precedent to support its decision. The petition was dismissed without costs, affirming the validity of respondent No.4's bid and the tender evaluation process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with tender conditions.
2. Evaluation of financial bids.
3. Absorption of tax component by the bidder.
4. Judicial review of tender decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Tender Conditions:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the selection of respondent No.4 as the L-1 bidder, arguing that respondent No.4's bid was non-responsive due to non-compliance with specific tender conditions, particularly Clauses 6.10.3, 6.10.5, and 18 of the "Instructions to the Bidders." The petitioner contended that respondent No.4 failed to separately mention the GST component in their bid, which was a mandatory requirement.

2. Evaluation of Financial Bids:
The petitioner argued that the financial bid of respondent No.4 did not comply with the tender instructions, as it did not specify the GST rate separately. According to the petitioner, if the GST component was excluded from respondent No.4's bid, the petitioner's bid would have been lower. However, the respondent countered that respondent No.4 chose not to pass on the sales tax component to Prasar Bharti, which was permissible under the tender terms.

3. Absorption of Tax Component by the Bidder:
The court noted that the tender documents did not mandate bidders to pass on the tax element to Prasar Bharti. It was within the bidder's discretion to absorb the tax component in the price offered. The court found that the approach adopted by respondent No.4, where they indicated "000" against the GST column, was not a deviation from the tender conditions. The court also rejected the petitioner's offer to waive off the tax component at this stage, stating it would amount to rewriting the bid post submission.

4. Judicial Review of Tender Decisions:
The court referred to principles laid down in previous judgments, emphasizing that judicial interference in tender matters is limited to instances where the process is found to be arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The court concluded that the decision-making process by Prasar Bharti was neither arbitrary nor irrational. The court cited the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, outlining the limited scope of judicial review in tender processes.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no flaw in the decision-making process of Prasar Bharti. The court found that respondent No.4's decision to absorb the tax component did not amount to a discount and was within the permissible tender conditions. The petitioner's late offer to absorb the tax component was not entertained, as it would constitute an amendment to the bid post submission.

Final Judgment:
The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, and no orders as to costs were issued.

---