Mishra Tours And Travels vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the submission of the driver's experience certificate was a mandatory requirement as per Clause 13 of the tender conditions (Annexure P-4), which formed part of the technical eligibility criteria. The petitioner's admitted failure to submit this certificate rendered their bid technically non-compliant. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the condition was not essential, stating that for vehicles intended for VIP duty, the driver's safety, reliability, and experience are paramount and directly connected to the contract's purpose. Consequently, the Court found no illegality or procedural irregularity in the respondents' action of rejecting the petitioner's bid and finalizing the tender in favour of Respondent No. 5, especially since the work order had already been issued and contractual obligations commenced. The Court noted that the tender conditions were duly published, uniformly applicable, and the petitioner participated without objection, thus precluding them from challenging the conditions after being declared unsuccessful. The entire process was deemed to have been conducted in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, with no demonstrated arbitrariness or mala fides. The ratio decidendi is that mandatory tender conditions, if clearly stipulated and related to the contract's purpose, must be adhered to, and bidders participating without protest cannot challenge them after disqualification.

Facts

The petitioner, Mishra Tours and Travels, participated in a tender process initiated by Respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Balod) for providing vehicles for VIP duty. The tender, with an estimated value of approximately Rs. 1 crore, was advertised via NIT No. PU/A/Balod/R.Ni./MT/1335/2025 dated 30.06.2025. The petitioner claims to have quoted the lowest rate but was disqualified for failing to submit the "driver's experience certificate." The petitioner argued this was not an essential condition and that their representation highlighting irregularities was ignored. Subsequently, a work order dated 07.08.2025 was issued to Respondent No. 5. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their bid and the award of the work order, alleging arbitrariness and illegality under the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid for non-submission of the driver's experience certificate was arbitrary and illegal, violating the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the driver's experience certificate was not an essential condition for the tender, as the procurement was for vehicles, not drivers' qualifications. They contended that this requirement was extraneous and unrelated to the tender's object. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the tender process was conducted offline despite the procurement value exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs, violating transparency principles. They also claimed that proceeding with the financial bid with only two eligible bidders contravened Rule 4.3.3 of the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, which mandates at least three qualified bidders for fair competition. The petitioner relied on the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002. The respondents argued that Clause 13 of the tender conditions mandated the submission of the driver's experience certificate (minimum three years) along with the bid. Therefore, non-submission rendered the bid non-responsive and technically disqualified. They asserted that Clause 22, concerning operational obligations for VIP duty, necessitated experienced drivers for safety and efficiency, making the requirement directly related to the contract's purpose and public interest. The respondents also contended that the petitioner participated without protest and cannot challenge the conditions post-disqualification. They further argued that interference at this stage would disrupt administrative functioning and cause financial loss.