M/S. Savant Instrumetns PVT LTD. vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the Tender Committee's decision to cancel the bid and invite fresh tenders was based on a review of the BOQs and documents submitted by the petitioner, including the additional BOQ. The Committee opined that the petitioner's submission of an additional BOQ, in the name of clarifying GST and other information, amounted to a conditional bid. The Court relied on the principle that a tender must be unconditional and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management, which states that terms of invitation to tender are in the realm of contract and cannot be opened to judicial scrutiny unless tailor-made to suit a particular person. The Court further noted that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in their favour, and the authority can retain the power to accept or reject any bid. No specific mala fides were attributed to the Tender Committee. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Savant Instruments Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a tender for providing water meters, maintenance, and spot billing in Armoor Municipality. The tender was a second call, issued on October 23, 2017. The petitioner was the lowest bidder (L1). The sixth respondent, the Municipality, cancelled the tender on May 7, 2018, based on the minutes of a Tender Committee meeting held on April 28, 2018. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and illegal, especially since they had extended their bid validity and submitted an additional Bill of Quantities (BOQ) to clarify GST implications, as the original BOQ only mentioned Sales Tax/VAT. The respondents contended that the additional BOQ constituted a conditional bid, justifying the cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the sixth respondent in cancelling the tender proceedings dated 07.05.2018, based on the Tender Committee minutes of 28.04.2018, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation was highhanded and unilateral, allegedly influenced by a complaint from M/s. Storm Energy Solutions Private Limited (L3). The petitioner's submitted documents, including an additional BOQ addressing the GST implications, were not conditional or in deviation of tender conditions. Revenue/State's arguments: The impugned action is not illegal or infirm and therefore not amenable to judicial review under Article 226. The allegation of highhanded cancellation based on a mere complaint is false. The additional BOQ submitted by the petitioner amounted to a conditional bid, making its rejection justifiable. The petitioner has no vested right to complain of a violation of natural justice in the absence of a concluded contract.