Pavansut Security Service Thru Proprietor Kripalsinh B Vala vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Co. LTD. Thru Superintending Engineer(Tr)

Facts

The petitioner, Pavansut Security Service, filed a Special Civil Application challenging the tender process for providing security services. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3, the lowest bidder (L-1), had quoted a service charge of 0.0000001% of the estimated cost without GST, which the petitioner claimed violated Clause 5 of GUVNL circular No. 140 dated 11.02.2021, mandating a minimum service charge. The petitioner, who quoted 0.01% service charge and was placed as L-2, contended that Respondent No. 3 should have been disqualified. The petitioner also alleged that Respondent No. 3 might have submitted its price bid physically, contrary to e-tender norms. The petitioner sought to have Respondent No. 3 disqualified and its own bid considered for the contract.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the decision-making process of the tender inviting authority was not flawed. It noted that a team of experts and the E-procurement Department had examined the issue and found Respondent No. 3 to be rightly placed as L-1. The Court emphasized that it should not substitute its view for that of the experts, especially in the absence of malafides or extraneous considerations against the petitioner. Citing Supreme Court judgments in M/s. N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. and Yashwant Sinha and others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court reiterated that High Courts should be reluctant to interfere with tender processes, which are the exclusive domain of the tender inviting authority. The Court found no material irregularity, arbitrariness, or favoritism in the decision-making process. Therefore, no case was made out for interference.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 3's bid, quoting a service charge of 0.0000001% without GST, is violative of Clause 5 of GUVNL circular No. 140 dated 11.02.2021, which mandates a minimum service charge, and if so, whether Respondent No. 3 should be disqualified? (Question of law/mixed fact and law, turning on interpretation of the circular and tender conditions). Petitioner's arguments: Respondent No. 3 failed to meet the minimum service charge requirement as per the modified circular, making its bid illegal. The petitioner also raised concerns about the physical submission of the price bid by Respondent No. 3, contrary to e-tender rules. The petitioner argued that its own bid met all criteria and should be considered, and that awarding the contract to Respondent No. 3 would be an act of favoritism and arbitrariness. Revenue/State's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment.