M/S Mb Omm vs. The State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Facts

M/s MB OMM (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the technical bids of Respondent No. 5 (Padmini Resorts) and Respondent No. 6 (Prismatic Hotels Private Limited) in a tender process initiated by the Assam Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ATDC) for the Development, Operation, and Management Contract of an Eco-Tourism Project at Dibru-Saikhowa. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 5 failed to submit the Qualification Information Form online, submitted a self-certified experience certificate, and a self-certified occupancy certificate. The petitioner also argued that Respondent No. 6 did not submit the required experience certificate and a yearly occupancy certificate. Furthermore, it was alleged that both Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 did not submit the annual turnover for the stipulated period of 2017-18 to 2021-22, but rather for 2016-17 to 2020-21.

Held

The Court held that the tendering authority has latitude to choose the best bidder, provided such discretion is exercised within the confines of Article 14 of the Constitution. Regarding the submission of annual turnover, the Court noted that the tendering authority, considering the impossibility of submitting the financial reports for the year 2021-22 by the last date, chose to disregard that specific year but kept the minimum average turnover requirement of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the last five years intact. The Court found that even with only four years of turnover (2017-18 to 2020-21), Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 met the average annual turnover criteria. The Court concluded that this decision by the Respondent Authorities was not unfair, unreasonable, or irrational, and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference with the decision of the Respondent Corporation. The interim order passed earlier was vacated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the technical bids of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were liable to be rejected for non-compliance with Clause 5 of the bidding document regarding the online submission of the Qualification Information Form, submission of self-certified experience certificates, and self-certified occupancy certificates (as argued by the petitioner against Respondent No. 5)? 2. Whether the technical bids of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were liable to be rejected for non-compliance with Clause 3(ii) and Clause 3(iii) of the bidding document regarding the submission of experience certificates and yearly occupancy certificates (as argued by the petitioner against Respondent No. 6)? 3. Whether the technical bids of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were liable to be rejected for submitting annual turnover for the period 2016-17 to 2020-21 instead of the stipulated period of 2017-18 to 2021-22, as per Clause 3(v) of the bidding document? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to adhere to specific clauses of the bidding document concerning online submission of forms, certification of experience and occupancy, and the correct period for annual turnover submission. The petitioner relied on the bidding document's clauses to support these contentions. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through their affidavit-in-opposition, explained the evaluation process. They contended that the tendering authority has latitude to make decisions within the confines of Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued that accepting the annual turnover for four years (2017-18 to 2020-21) instead of five, while ensuring the minimum average turnover requirement was met, was a reasonable exercise of discretion and did not violate Article 14.