Shib Shankar Majumder vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Shib Shankar Majumder, was an unsuccessful participant in a tender process. He challenged the tender on three grounds: (1) bid documents were not visible on the website as per tender conditions; (2) there were only three bidders, while the tender required four "bid openers"; and (3) the price quoted by the successful tenderer was abnormally low, making GST and minimum wage compliances impossible. The respondents argued that "bid openers" referred to officials opening bids, not the number of bidders, and that the petitioner never raised the website visibility issue during the tender process. They also stated there was no minimum bid value set, and any future violations of GST or minimum wage by the successful tenderer could be addressed by the authorities. The work order had already been issued.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's first contention regarding the number of "bid openers" was a non-issue, as "bid openers" referred to the officials opening the bids, not the number of participants. The Court found the respondents' argument that the petitioner never raised the issue of website visibility at the relevant juncture to be justified, noting it was raised for the first time in the writ petition. While acknowledging the petitioner's reliance on general guidelines for e-procurement, the Court observed that this was not an essential condition embedded in the tender document itself and that the Tender Inviting Authority's interpretation of tender documents is sacrosanct. The Court found no deficiency in the authority's reasoning that full visibility might impact professional secrecy and mercantile interests. Regarding the low bid, the Court noted that no minimum bid value was set in the tender. It held that it would be premature to anticipate GST or minimum wage violations by the successful tenderer and that such matters are for the Tender Inviting Authorities to address if violations occur during execution. The Court reiterated that it is not the lookout of an unsuccessful tenderer to flag anticipated issues. The Court concluded that there was no palpable arbitrariness, unreasonableness, mala fides, or tailor-made conditions to warrant interference with the tender process. The Court dismissed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender process is vitiated due to the alleged non-visibility of bid documents on the website, contrary to general guidelines for e-procurement under the Central Public Procurement Portal. 2. Whether the tender process is invalid because there were only three bidders, while the tender conditions stipulated four "bid openers". 3. Whether the tender awarded to the successful bidder is liable to be set aside due to the abnormally low price quoted, which the petitioner contends would not allow for compliance with GST and minimum wage requirements. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-visibility of bid documents violated e-procurement guidelines. He contended that the requirement of four "bid openers" was not met with only three bidders. Furthermore, he presented calculations suggesting the successful tenderer's price was so low that it would be impossible to meet GST and minimum wage obligations, indicating a potential flaw in the tender award. The petitioner relied on calculations demonstrating the impossibility of compliance. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that "bid openers" referred to officials opening bids and was distinct from the number of bidders, thus satisfying the condition. They contended that the petitioner never raised the issue of website visibility at the relevant time and is raising it for the first time in the writ petition. Regarding the low bid, they stated there was no minimum bid value set in the tender and that any future violations of GST or minimum wage by the successful tenderer could be addressed by the authorities. They also noted that the work order had already been issued.