TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sent by 27.11.2008, failing which the tender would be liable for rejection and will not be opened; i) "AA" Class certificate with minimum 80% of the project cost turnover audited in the last financial year 2007-08; ii) Bidding capacity value should be more than project cost; iii) II Building category registration and above. All the above documents have to be readily available with any builder having continuous work for different authorities. b) Last date of "On Line" submitting of "Price bid" was 28.11.2008. c) Tender fees, Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and other documents can be submitted by 04.12.2008. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement three bids were received by the University out of which one was disqualified at the threshold for not having the requisite experience. Out of the remaining two, the bid of the appellant - M/s. Sorath Builders was the lowest. One of the terms and conditions of the bid was that pre-qualification documents were required to be sent by 27.11.2008. Since the bid of respondent no. 1, Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited was sent on 01.12.2008 i.e. three days after the last date of receiving these documents by the University the bid of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to the tender issued by respondent no. 2 - University on the ground that the terms of the tender were arbitrary. It was also argued that the High Court has not only interfered with the terms and conditions of the tender but has written the terms of the tender itself by directing the University to issue a fresh tender on the terms and conditions suggested in the said order. It was also submitted that jurisdiction of the writ court to interfere in the terms of a contract is very limited and that even if two views are possible and the authorities granting tender takes a particular view, the courts should not interfere. It was also submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the time period which was granted by the University cannot be said to be too short for it was possible for the respondent no. 1 to submit the bid after satisfying all the requirements. It was also pointed out that the respondent came to know about the tenders only on 27.11.2008 as he was undertaking various construction works, and therefore could not submit the required pre-qualification documents in time within the stipulated date. It was also submitted that so placed and situated, the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir tender due to paucity of time and that any prejudice is caused to anyone due to time schedule provided by the University. It appears that only during the hearing stage a plea was raised which found favour with the High Court but as stated above the aforesaid plea is without any merit for the advertisement was issued on 21.11.2008 requiring the parties to submit their pre-qualification documents only by 27.11.2008. Therefore, sufficient time was provided to submit tender papers. The University also permitted pre qualification documents to be submitted "On Line". Therefore, the contention that the time was too short for submission of pre-qualification documents by 27.11.2008 is without any merit. 10. We also find on record that the tender submitted by the appellant was the lowest and the same was accepted as the same was found to be reasonable, tenable, plausible and valid. The High Court went beyond its jurisdiction in setting aside the decision of the University in accepting the bid of the appellant. We are of the opinion that there is no fault or arbitrariness in the decision making process of the University. The said decision cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, this Court had occasion to dispose of a case of paramount importance of Government contract. In the said decision this Court has observed as follows: "where rational non-discriminatory norms have been laid down for granting of tenders, a departure from such norms can only be made on valid principles. The award of contract cannot be by stopping the performance of the contract so awarded, there is a major detriment to the public because the construction of two thermal power units is held up on account of the dispute". The court further held: "the award of a contract, whether it by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations, and the same would be: (1) The price at which the other side is willing to do the work; (2) Whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications; (3) Whether the person tendering has the ability to deliver the goods or services as per specifications. When large works contracts involving en....