M/S Inatsg (International Advance Technology And Service Group) vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s INATSG, participated in a tender floated by the Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, for Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) of CCTV cameras. The petitioner was declared the L1 bidder with a quoted price of Rs. 2,34,01,917/- (excluding GST). However, the tender was cancelled on April 25, 2023, via Memo No. 289, without assigning any reasons in the order itself. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation and seeking a direction to award the work order. Subsequently, a fresh tender was issued on May 22, 2023, in which the petitioner did not participate, and this second tender was also cancelled due to single bidder participation. The respondents argued that reasons for cancellation were recorded prior to the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that while the impugned order dated April 25, 2023, did not explicitly state the reasons for cancellation, the records produced by the respondents, specifically Annexure R/2 dated April 14, 2023, indicated that the Tender Committee had taken a decision to cancel the tender with assigned reasons. The Court relied on the principle laid down in Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology Vs. Pandurang Godwalkar (Dr), which allows courts to examine the file for reasons in support of an order when the order itself is silent. The Court found that the price quoted by the petitioner for the AMC was significantly higher than the price quoted in a 2019 tender, which included supply, installation, and three years of maintenance, thus deeming the quoted price "astronomical" and justifying the Tender Committee's decision. Consequently, the petitioner had not made out a case for interference with the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of Tender No. 01/2022-23 dated March 6, 2023, by Memo No. 289 dated April 25, 2023, is arbitrary and illegal for not assigning reasons in the order itself, thereby violating the principles laid down in Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. (Petitioner's contention). 2. Whether the cancellation of the tender was justified based on the reasons recorded by the Tender Committee on April 14, 2023, even if those reasons were not explicitly stated in the cancellation order dated April 25, 2023 (Respondents' contention). 3. Whether the quoted price by the petitioner was exorbitant compared to a previous tender in 2019, justifying the cancellation.