Petition to Quash State Call Centre Tender Process Dismissed; Court Finds No Arbitrary Actions or Malafide Intent.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the NIT open tender process for the State Level Centralized Call Centre/Dial-100 Project Phase-II. The petitioner alleged arbitrary actions and malafide intent by the respondents. However, the HC found no merit in these claims, emphasizing that the petitioner had a fair opportunity to participate but failed to do so timely. The HC upheld the validity of the tender process and the selection of the winning bid, concluding that the respondents did not act arbitrarily. The petitioner's non-participation weakened their case, leading to the dismissal of their request to quash the tender process.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to NIT open tender process for State Level Centralized Call Centre/ Dial-100 Project Phase-II (2020-2025) on Turn-Key Basis, Allegations of arbitrary exercise of powers, Malafide actions, Request for quashing the tender process and initiating a fresh one.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an existing contractor, challenged the NIT open tender process for a project, alleging arbitrary exercise of powers by the respondents. The petitioner claimed to have been forcefully restrained by a government agency during the bid submission period, affecting their ability to participate. Previous calls for tender had not attracted participants due to harsh payment terms, leading to a revised 3rd call. The petitioner highlighted their experience and infrastructure in similar projects across different states.

2. The history of the project revealed that the petitioner's firm had previously won a contract that expired in March 2020 but was extended twice until March 2021. Subsequent attempts to reissue the tender faced challenges as no participants came forward due to objections. The 3rd revised call was issued with modified conditions. The petitioner prepared a bank guarantee for the bid but was allegedly prevented from submitting it due to a raid by the Commercial Tax Department on the last submission date.

3. The petitioner raised concerns about the significant price difference between their annual rate and the bid submitted by another firm. Despite the technical bids of both parties being qualified, the petitioner's grievances were not addressed by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the entire tender process was conducted arbitrarily and with malice, leading to unfair outcomes.

4. The petitioner sought to quash the tender process and initiate a fresh one based on the alleged irregularities and unfair practices. Citing relevant judgments, the petitioner's counsel argued for setting aside the current process due to the perceived flaws and discrepancies in the selection of the winning bid.

5. In response, the respondents contended that their actions were not arbitrary, and the petitioner had failed to establish malafide intentions or unfair treatment. They argued that the petitioner had sufficient time to prepare and submit the bid but chose to do so at the last minute, coinciding with the raid by a different department. The respondents maintained that due process was followed in evaluating the bids and selecting the winning proposal.

6. The Court analyzed the facts and arguments presented by both parties. It noted the history of the project, extensions granted to the existing contractor, and the multiple attempts to reissue the tender. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims of unfair treatment or malice in the selection process. It emphasized that the petitioner had the opportunity to participate but failed to do so in a timely manner, leading to the acceptance of other bids.

7. Referring to relevant legal precedents, the Court concluded that the respondents had not acted arbitrarily in finalizing the winning bid. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's non-participation in the tender process weakened their argument for challenging the selection of the winning bid. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the tender process and the selection of the winning bid.

---