Bharatiya Researve Bank And Ors vs. Shristi And Ors

Facts

The appellants, Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited and others, are challenging an order of a learned Single Judge that allowed a writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 3. The writ petitioners had participated in a tender process initiated by appellant no. 1 for the management of Health Care Services at its Salboni plant. Their technical bid was rejected, and they were informed that communication regarding required documents was sent via email on June 16, 2022. The petitioners claimed this email was overlooked. They subsequently submitted documents on August 3, 2022, requesting time, but these were refused. The writ petition challenged the rejection of the technical bid and sought consideration of their financial bid. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, finding the appellants did not adhere to the stipulated mode of service in the tender document, relying on clause 27.

Held

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the learned Single Judge's order. The Court found that the appellants had not committed any error in rejecting the technical bid of the respondent bidder. The Court noted that the appellants contended clause 19 was attracted, while the respondents relied on clause 27. Clause 6 of the bid document clearly stipulated the submission of tenders complete in all respects before the closing date, with consequences for failure. Clause 19 provided for one opportunity to provide complete and unambiguous documents for pre-qualification criteria after bid opening. The Court observed that the email sent on June 16, 2022, requiring further documents, did not refer to clause 27 or mention that the shortfalls were minor. No document was pointed out to show it was a case of minor infirmity. The Court also noted that the writ petition was heard and decided on the first date of hearing without an opportunity for the appellants to file an affidavit in opposition. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Silppi Constructions Contractors, W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., and Sorath Builders vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited, the Court held that negligent mistakes in bid documents cannot be corrected on the basis of equity, and terms and conditions of a tender must be strictly adhered to. The Court concluded that it was not a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the decision of the appellants.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellants did not adhere to the mode of service stipulated in the tender document, specifically by relying on clause 27 instead of clause 19, and whether the rejection of the technical bid was arbitrary or unreasonable? Petitioner/Appellant's arguments: The appellants contended that clause 19 of the bid document was attracted, which allows one opportunity to provide complete and unambiguous documents for pre-qualification criteria. They argued that the writ petition was allowed prematurely without giving them an opportunity to file an affidavit in opposition and that the bid was not submitted by the actual bidder. They asserted that the opportunity to file documents was given, but the respondents failed to avail it within the stipulated time, and it was not a case of minor infirmity. Respondent/Revenue's arguments: The respondents (writ petitioners) argued that clause 27, relating to minor defects, was attracted, and physical notice as required by this clause was not served. They maintained that the required documents were submitted on August 3, 2022, but were refused.