Coal tender clause requiring private siding owner permission for dispatch operations upheld as fair and non-discriminatory

Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging Clause 1.12(V) of a tender document requiring permission from a private siding owner for coal dispatch operations. The petitioner-bidder argued that involving a private party created uncertainty and unfair bidding conditions, violating constitutional provisions. The court held that judicial interference in tender processes is limited and only permissible when terms are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. The petitioner failed to demonstrate material evidence of differential treatment by the private siding agent. The court found no violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), noting the private agent's commitment to treat all bidders equally.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to Clause 1.12(V) of the tender document.
2. Allegation of arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Involvement of a Private Siding Agent in the tender process.
4. Estoppel due to participation in the tender process.
5. Request for amendment of the writ petition.
6. Request for interim relief to restrain the Principal from awarding the work order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Clause 1.12(V) of the tender document:
The petitioner challenged Clause 1.12(V) of the tender document, which required bidders to have permission/consent from a private siding owner (respondent no.2) to operate the Vimla siding for coal dispatch. The petitioner argued that this clause was arbitrary, capricious, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court, however, found that the clause was not arbitrary or irrational, emphasizing that the Principal had justified the selection of the Private Siding Agent for ensuring uninterrupted coal transportation. The court noted that the Private Siding Agent's involvement was logistically feasible and had a clear nexus with the tender's objectives.

2. Allegation of arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that the inclusion of a private party in the tender process introduced uncertainty and potential arbitrariness in the financial bids. The court dismissed these concerns, noting that the Private Siding Agent had committed to charging uniform rates for all bidders, thereby addressing the petitioner's apprehensions about a lack of a level playing field. The court concluded that the clause did not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) as it did not result in arbitrariness or discrimination.

3. Involvement of a Private Siding Agent in the tender process:
The court found that the involvement of the Private Siding Agent was justified by the Principal's need for uninterrupted coal transportation. The court noted that the Private Siding Agent's dedicated siding and logistical feasibility supported its inclusion in the tender process. The court also observed that the Private Siding Agent had communicated its willingness to issue the necessary no objection certificate to the petitioner, subject to general terms and conditions applicable to all siding users.

4. Estoppel due to participation in the tender process:
The respondent argued that the petitioner was estopped from challenging Clause 1.12(V) as it had participated in the tender process without reserving its rights. The court did not explicitly address this argument in detail but focused on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the clause. The court ultimately found no merit in the petitioner's challenge, rendering the estoppel argument moot.

5. Request for amendment of the writ petition:
The petitioner sought to amend the writ petition to raise additional grounds of challenge and to strike down the revised Clause 1.12(V) through Corrigendum II. The court found the amendment request to be belated and without merit, noting that the petitioner had ample opportunity to seek clarification from the Private Siding Agent but failed to do so. The court denied the amendment request, emphasizing that the grounds proposed had no merit.

6. Request for interim relief to restrain the Principal from awarding the work order:
The petitioner requested interim relief to restrain the Principal from awarding the work order to the successful bidder for two weeks. The court refused this request, stating that there was no reason to accept it given the court's findings on the merits of the petitioner's challenge.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge to Clause 1.12(V) of the tender document. The court held that the clause was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court also denied the petitioner's requests for amendment and interim relief, emphasizing that the Private Siding Agent had committed to charging uniform rates for all bidders, thereby addressing the petitioner's concerns about a lack of a level playing field.

---