P Raj Kumar vs. The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation

Held

The Court held that it could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the tender award process. The respondents had finalized the tender and entered into an agreement with the successful bidder. The Court found no evidence of arbitrariness or malafides on the part of the respondents, as contended by the respondents' counsel. Given that the tender process was concluded and an agreement executed, and in the absence of demonstrated arbitrariness, the Court deemed it a settled preposition that it should not interfere. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for a fresh tender was rejected. The Writ Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, P. Raj Kumar, submitted a bid for a tender issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation and others on December 20, 2024. The petitioner's bid, submitted on January 7, 2025, was rejected because he provided a copy of his PAN card without notarization, which he argued was not a mandatory criterion. The respondents stated that out of four bidders, three were disqualified at the technical bid stage. The petitioner contended that with only one bidder remaining, the tender should be re-invited. The respondents countered that the sole qualified bidder's offer was within a reasonable price range (below 10% of the fixed rate), negating the need for fresh tenders. They also noted that a letter of selection and an agreement had already been issued to the successful bidder.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid for failing to submit a notarized PAN card, when it was not a mandatory criterion, was arbitrary and illegal, necessitating a fresh tender process? Petitioner's argument: The rejection was based on a non-mandatory criterion. With three out of four bidders disqualified, the process was flawed, and a fresh tender should be called to ensure fair competition and avoid finalizing the tender with a sole bidder. The respondents' disqualification of other bidders on grounds like non-submission of GST clearance certificates or notarized documents was also questioned implicitly. Respondents' argument: The disqualification was justified. The sole remaining bidder's offer was within the acceptable price range (below 10% of the fixed rate), as per tender conditions. If the offer had exceeded 30%, a fresh tender would have been mandatory. Furthermore, a selection letter and agreement had already been executed with the successful bidder, making judicial interference under Article 226 inappropriate.