M/S Bodoland Security Services vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that Clause 17 of the Eligibility Criteria of the NIT dated 15.02.2024 is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The reasoning was based on the Court's prima facie view that a person cannot be penalized for pursuing their legal remedy. Given the urgency expressed by the respondents to finalize the tender process and their intention to consider the petitioner's tender, the Court found it appropriate to quash the exclusionary clause. The ratio decidendi is that eligibility criteria that penalize bidders for exercising their legal rights are unsustainable. The operative direction was for the respondents to consider the petitioner's bid along with all other valid bids and finalize the tender process as per law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bodoland Security Services, challenged Clause 17 of the Eligibility Criteria in a Notice Inviting e-Tender (NIT) dated 15.02.2024 issued by the Central Institute of Technology (CIT), Kokrajhar. This clause barred bidders with pending court cases against CIT. The petitioner had a pending case, WP(C) No.5427/2023, arising from a previous tender where their bid was rejected for not including GST. The petitioner argued that Clause 17 was illegal and violated Articles 12 and 14 of the Constitution. Following an interim order on 04.03.2024, the petitioner submitted their bid, which was accepted. The respondents sought permission to open and declare the technical and financial bids.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 17 of the Eligibility Criteria of the Notice Inviting e-Tender dated 15.02.2024, which bars bidders with pending court cases against the Central Institute of Technology (CIT), Kokrajhar, is illegal and violative of Articles 12 and 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Clause 17 is illegal and unconstitutional, as it unfairly penalizes a bidder for pursuing their legal remedies. They argued that individuals should not be barred from participating in tenders simply because they have initiated legal proceedings. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the petitioner's bid had been accepted pursuant to an interim order and that they sought permission to proceed with the tender evaluation, including the petitioner's bid. They did not explicitly argue in favor of Clause 17's legality but indicated a willingness to consider the petitioner's bid.