Macneill Engineering LTD. vs. Ongc Petro Additions Limited

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 1 (OPaL) had not committed any error in law based on the terms and clauses of the tender (NIT) by deviating from any process and ultimately accepting Respondent No. 2 as the L-1 bidder. The Court found that the petitioner's arguments were devoid of merit. The Court emphasized that a writ court is hesitant to interfere in the commercial/contractual transactions of the State or its instrumentalities unless tainted with unreasonableness, arbitrariness, malafide, legal malice, or colourable exercise of powers, ignoring norms of transparency and fairness, and against public interest. In this case, the scrutiny of the NIT and the decision-making process leading to the awarding of the contract did not reveal such defects. The Court also referred to Central Vigilance Commission guidelines regarding transparency and fairness in tendering processes, finding them not violated. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Macneill Engineering Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the qualification of Respondent No. 2 (ONGC Petro Additions Limited - OPaL) in a tender process for Operations and Maintenance of a Product Warehouse. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 did not meet the Bid Evaluation Criteria (BEC), specifically regarding minimum experience and annualized executed contract value. The petitioner alleged that OPaL improperly extended bid submission deadlines to favor Respondent No. 2, whose bid was technically unqualified. The tender was for a period of two years and six months. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash Respondent No. 2's qualification and to restrain OPaL from accepting their offer.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 1 (OPaL) acted arbitrarily and in violation of the tender terms and conditions by extending the bid submission deadline to favour Respondent No. 2, who was allegedly technically unqualified as per Bid Evaluation Criteria (BEC) Clause B.1.2.3, specifically concerning the minimum annualized executed contract value of Rs. 3.80 Crores and minimum three years of experience in "Bagging operations and Materials Handling / forklift operations / forklift maintenance" in Petrochemical Plants / Refineries / Fertilizer units? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning tender conditions and their application). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 2 did not meet the experience and turnover criteria stipulated in BEC Clause B.1.2.3. They contended that OPaL's extension of bid submission dates, particularly to 2.7.2018, was done without a corrigendum and solely to accommodate Respondent No. 2, who allegedly lacked sufficient turnover by 22.6.2018. The petitioner claimed Respondent No. 2 had no experience in Bagging Operations and Forklift operations, and that OPaL deviated from the tender terms by opening Respondent No. 2's commercial bid despite technical disqualification. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the court's findings suggest that OPaL defended its actions, and the court ultimately found no error in the process.