TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nical Bid Document shall be submitted in the form of printed document. Bids submitted by Telex, fax or email shall not be entertained. Any bid not secured in accordance with Clause 2.8 mentioned above, shall be rejected by COT without any further correspondence, as non-responsive. A bid that does not meet all pre- qualification criteria or is not responsive or not fulfilling technical evaluation shall be rejected by COT, and may not subsequently be made responsive by correction or withdrawal of the non-conforming deviation or reservation by the Bidder. 3.4.5 It shall be the responsibility of the Bidder to abide by the provisions of the labour welfare legislations, like The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Contract Labor Act, 1970, The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and other similar legislations, rules, and orders as issued from time to time. Annexure - 2 (Financial Bid) Format for Financial Bid Price Bid: (Financial/Commercial Bid submitted in physical form shall be liable for rejection. It should be submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.1 approached the Gujarat High Court in a writ petition challenging the aforesaid decision. By its judgment dated 11.8.2015, the High Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the tender in favour of M/s Airan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ought to be quashed and set aside with the further direction that the Government of Gujarat shall give an opportunity to all three tenderers to resubmit their bids after being appraised of the minimum wage figure given by the Labour Department. This was done as the High Court was of the opinion that all the bidders ought to have been given an opportunity to revise their bills subsequent to the minimum wage calculated by the Labour Department. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment, the Transport Department of the Government of Gujarat furnished to all the competing bidders the Labour Department's calculation that minimum wages plus bonus payable for the contract was Rs. 3,00,92,346/-. 6. In response to the above, the Appellant wrote a letter dated 2.11.2015 sticking to the original bid figure of Rs. 2,92,93,944/-. On 3.9.2015, Respondent No.1, in response to the minimum wage figure disclosed, wrote to the Government of Gujarat, as follows:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at a decision that the actual minimum wage plus bonus worked out to Rs. 2,91,00,000/-, and thus revised their earlier figure of Rs. 3,00,92,346/-. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court has stated, and it is not controverted before us, that this figure was not disclosed to either party. 8. On 2.11.2015, Respondent No.1 again knocked at the doors of the High Court in a second writ petition filed by it. By the impugned judgment dated 22.2.2016, the High Court allowed Respondent no.1's petition in the following terms:- "8. Under the circumstances, the decision of the authorities to shortlist respondent No.3 for awarding the contract is set aside. The offer of the petitioner shall be treated as matching with the revised minimum wage calculation. The petitioner shall give such offer in clear writing and undertaking to the authorities latest by 25.2.2016. The respondent authorities, unless there is any other disqualification of the petitioner to carry out the contract, being the lower, shall accept the same. 9. Petition is disposed of." 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the Appellant is before us. 10. Shri Harin Raval, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strictly conform to the format provided in Annexure 2 of the tender document. Annexure 2 which contains the format for the price bid makes it clear that the salary paid to deployed manpower should not be less than the minimum wage. It further goes on to state in paragraph 3 thereof that if the component of salary quoted is less than the minimum wage prescribed, the bid is liable to be rejected. On this ground alone, Respondent No.1's bid is liable to be rejected inasmuch as, vide its letter dated 3.9.2015, Respondent No.1 stuck to its original figure of Rs. 2,77,68,000/- which is way below the minimum wage fixed by the Government. Secondly, Shri Raval is also right in stating that the without prejudice offer of Rs. 3,00,92,346/- is an offer which is not fixed, but open ended. This is clear from the fact that it was up to the Government then to pick up either figure by way of acceptance. This is clearly interdicted by clause 2.5.6 of the tender which states that prices quoted by the bidder have to be fixed, and no open ended bid can be entertained, the same being liable to be rejected straightaway. Such condition is obviously an essential condition of the tender which goes to the el....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e existing; (iv) the parties who have taken the benefit of such relaxation should not ordinarily be allowed to take a different stand in relation to compliance with another part of tender contract, particularly when the was also not in a position to comply with all the conditions of tender fully, unless the court otherwise finds relaxation of a condition which being essential in nature could not be relaxed and thus the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction; (v) when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with; ..." [para 66] 17. We also agree with the contention of Shri Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to make a fresh bargain between parties. 18. In General Assurance Society Ltd. V. Chandmull Jain, (1996) 3 SCR 500, this Court, in a slightly different context, stated: "In other respects there is no difference between a contract of insuranc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the f....