Universal Communications vs. State Of Maharashtra Ministry Of Home Affairs Thr. Its Principal Secretary And Ors

Held

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Regarding the Petitioner's claim of forgery by Respondent No. 3, the Court held that mere statements or information obtained through RTI are not sufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court noted that the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate bona fide in prosecuting the writ petition and had not taken any steps after October 18, 2024. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India & Ors.*, stating that greater latitude should be given to State Authorities in formulating tender conditions and awarding contracts, unless the action is malicious or a misuse of statutory powers. The Court also referred to *Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Ors.*, emphasizing that writ courts should interfere in contractual matters only when the decision is arbitrary, illegal, or irrational, and not to decide contractual disputes or protect private interests at the cost of public interest. The Court found no evidence to suggest that the tendering authority's decision was mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational. The Petitioner's claim of disqualification being arbitrary was not substantiated to the satisfaction of the Court, especially given the advanced stage of the project and the lack of demonstrated bona fides by the Petitioner.

Facts

The Petitioner, Universal Communications, a partnership firm, challenged the decision of Respondent No. 2, the tendering authority, to declare Saitech Solutions and Services (Respondent No. 3) as the successful bidder for an IP Based CCTV System tender. The Petitioner was declared technically disqualified on January 29, 2024. The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3's experience certificate was forged and that Respondent No. 3 was not qualified. The Petitioner also sought a declaration that it was qualified and that its bid was wrongly rejected. The tender process involved Quality-cum-Cost Based Selection (QCBS) with a 70% weightage for technical score. The work order was issued on February 16, 2024, and approximately 70% of the work was completed by the time the Respondent No. 2 filed its reply-affidavit. The Petitioner had raised objections on January 19, 2024, which were replied to on January 25, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification of the Petitioner from the technical bid was arbitrary and illegal, considering the Petitioner's objections to the qualification of Respondent No. 3. (Argued by Petitioner). The Petitioner contended that the experience certificate submitted by Respondent No. 3 appeared forged, based on information obtained through RTI, and that Respondent No. 3 was therefore not qualified. The Petitioner relied on the High Court's decision in *Hemant Ashar v. Nashik Municipal Smart City Development Corporation Limited & Ors.* to argue that the Court should take cognizance of the alleged forgery. 2. Whether the Petitioner is qualified for the tender as per the pre-qualification criteria. (Argued by Petitioner). 3. Whether the Petitioner's bid was wrongly rejected as technically disqualified. (Argued by Petitioner). The Respondent No. 2 argued that the Petitioner failed to submit proper documents and that the disqualification was based on a report by the Project Management Consultant. The Respondent No. 2 also stated that the admission fees were paid by all bidders, that Respondent No. 3 (L1 bidder) was exempted from EMD as an MSME, that Respondent No. 3 possessed a valid experience certificate for installing more than 115 cameras, and that Respondent No. 3 had an office in Nashik District as per its GST Certificate. The Respondent No. 2 further contended that the tender process was completed, a contract was executed, and significant work had already been carried out.