Digdarshi Women Group vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Digdarshi Women Group, submitted bids for three separate tender notifications issued by the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, for the supply of labourers and supervisors for different zones. The petitioner's bids were rejected on technical and commercial grounds, including issues with GST certificates, experience certificates, and UDIN numbers. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation cancelled the original tender proceedings and issued fresh tender notifications. The petitioner challenged the rejection of her bids and the cancellation of the tenders by filing three writ petitions. The grounds for rejection varied across the tenders, leading the petitioner to argue that the Municipal Corporation applied inconsistent standards. The petitioner also highlighted that similar objections were previously considered and decided in her favour in other writ petitions.

Held

The Court found that the Municipal Corporation had applied different yardsticks in rejecting the petitioner's bids across the various tender proceedings, which it considered an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court noted that the rejection of bids in the original tender notifications, which had already been cancelled, was the subject of these writ petitions. Considering that fresh tender notifications had been issued, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in these fresh tenders. This was to be achieved by extending the dates for bid submission and opening through the issuance of a corrigendum to the new tender notifications. The Court explicitly stated that it had not decided whether the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria under Clause 14(xii) of the tender document, as that was not the issue before it. The Municipal Corporation was granted liberty to consider the petitioner's bid in accordance with the law, along with other bidders, after the extended process. The Court did not decide the specific eligibility criteria but focused on ensuring the petitioner had an opportunity to participate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bids in the original tender notifications was arbitrary and unsustainable, particularly concerning the grounds related to GST certificates, experience certificates, and UDIN numbers, thereby violating principles of natural justice and fair play? (Relates to the interpretation and application of tender conditions). 2. Whether the cancellation of the original tender proceedings and the issuance of fresh tender notifications, preventing the petitioner from participating, was a consequence of the arbitrary rejection of her bids, and if so, what relief can be granted? (Relates to procedural fairness and the right to participate in tenders). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the reasons for rejection were inconsistent and applied differently across various tenders, indicating arbitrariness. They argued that the objections regarding GST certificates and UDIN numbers were either invalid or had been previously decided in their favour in other writ petitions. They also pointed out that their experience certificate was issued by the Municipal Corporation itself, making the rejection on that ground unsustainable. The petitioner sought to participate in the fresh tender proceedings. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, primarily the Municipal Corporation, argued that the petitioner's documents did not comply with the tender conditions. They also raised a procedural issue regarding the mechanism for issuing corrigendums in online tender proceedings to allow the petitioner to participate in fresh tenders.