Hindustan Technologies vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to maintain a public interest litigation. The Court reasoned that the petitioner, a proprietorship company whose core business is providing manpower for marine works, is not espousing the public interest for the welfare and benefit of the general public. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had a commercial interest and a potential conflict of interest in the matter. The Court also noted that the authorization for filing the petition was not specific to a public interest litigation. Regarding the merits of the tender award, the Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender processes, stating that courts should not function as appellate authorities and should avoid substituting their judgment for that of expert committees unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fides. The Court noted the Additional Solicitor General's submission that eligibility conditions were revised due to a lack of bidders and that Respondent No. 4 met the revised criteria, a submission not countered by the petitioner. The Court found no material before it to substantiate the petitioner's claims of fabricated documents or arbitrary exercise of decision-making power by the authorities. Therefore, the Court concluded that no valid case was made out for interference.

Facts

Hindustan Technologies, a proprietorship company, filed a writ petition challenging a tender notification issued on December 18, 2023, for acoustic emission testing of HP air bottles on ships and submarines. The petitioner alleged that the tender was awarded to the 4th respondent, Krasny Defence Technologies Limited, in violation of eligibility criteria. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that the 4th respondent lacked the minimum average annual turnover of Rs. 13,54,500/- over the last three financial years ending March 31, 2023, and had not executed relevant contracts in the last seven years. The petitioner further alleged that the 4th respondent misrepresented its eligibility by using work orders of the 5th respondent, Sadhav Shipping Limited, which was accepted by the respondent authorities. The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the petitioner, as a commercial entity, lacked locus standi to file a public interest litigation and had a conflict of interest. They also contended that the eligibility conditions were revised due to a lack of bidders and that the 4th respondent met the revised criteria.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a proprietorship company engaged in providing manpower for marine works, has the locus standi to maintain a public interest litigation concerning a tender awarded by naval authorities for specialized technical services (Question of Law). 2. Whether the award of the tender to the 4th respondent, Krasny Defence Technologies Limited, was arbitrary and illegal due to alleged non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria, specifically regarding minimum average turnover and past execution of similar contracts, and potential misrepresentation of experience using documents of a third party (Question of Mixed Law and Fact). Petitioner's Arguments: - Respondent No. 4 does not meet the minimum average annual turnover of Rs. 13,54,500/- for the last three financial years ending March 31, 2023. - Respondent No. 4 has not executed contracts related to acoustic emission testing in the last seven years. - Respondent No. 4 submitted work orders of Respondent No. 5 to claim eligibility, which was accepted by the authorities, constituting fraud and misrepresentation. - The award of the contract in violation of eligibility conditions is arbitrary and illegal, impacting the public at large. Revenue/State's Arguments: - A company cannot maintain a public interest litigation. - The petitioner's business is not for the welfare of the general public; it has a conflict of interest and seeks individual benefit. - The petitioner's authorized signatory's address and the location of an unsuccessful bidder suggest the petition is for the benefit of other commercial establishments, not public interest. - The authorization letter for filing the petition is undated and lacks specific authorization for a public interest litigation. - Eligibility conditions were revised due to a lack of bidders, and Respondent No. 4 meets the revised criteria. This submission was not countered by the petitioner.