M/S Balaji Road Lines vs. Food Corporation Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court directed respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 25.7.2017. This decision must be made in accordance with the law, by passing a speaking order, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The entire process is to be completed within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Court's order. The Court did not decide on the validity of the disqualification or the merits of the tender process itself, deferring these to the decision of respondent No. 3. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must address representations from aggrieved parties through speaking orders after providing a hearing, especially in tender matters, within a reasonable timeframe.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balaji Road Lines, filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of its technical bid for a handling and transport contractor tender issued by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and others. The tender was for grain handling and transport at Jhajjar (Talav) Centre, District Rohtak. The FCI issued an e-tender notice on June 16, 2017, with a corrigendum later due to the introduction of GST. The petitioner submitted its tender on July 11, 2017. Krishan Kumar and Company also submitted a tender. On July 18, 2017, respondent No. 3 (presumably FCI) rejected the petitioner's technical bid. The petitioner made a representation on July 25, 2017, to respondent No. 3, highlighting alleged mistakes in the awarded tenderer's bid and requesting a personal review of all tender documents. No response was received, leading to the present writ petition seeking to quash the disqualification, accept the petitioner's bid, and prevent the award of the contract to Krishan Kumar and Company.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid by respondent No. 3 was arbitrary and illegal, warranting interference by this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that its representation dated 25.7.2017, highlighting alleged flaws in the awarded tenderer's bid and requesting a personal review, was not acted upon, suggesting a lack of due process. The petitioner sought directions for acceptance of its technical bid and opening of its price bid. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but their action of disqualifying the petitioner's bid and accepting another bidder's bid implies a contention that the disqualification was justified based on the tender conditions. The judgment does not explicitly name specific provisions of the GST Act or other statutes that were the subject of legal arguments, focusing instead on the procedural aspects of the tender process and the petitioner's representation.