Ascent Electrification Engineers vs. Indian Institute Of Management, Ahmedabad

Facts

The petitioner, Ascent Electrification Engineers, filed a writ application challenging the action of the respondent No. 1, Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, in disqualifying them from a tender process (Tender No. IIMA/Contracts/TW-38/2020) for electrical work. The petitioner argued that their disqualification was arbitrary and that their price bid of Rs. 2,58,50,103.97 was lower than the L1 bidder, M/s. Evercast Projects Pvt. Ltd., whose bid was Rs. 2,59,83,893/-. The petitioner contended that had they not been disqualified technically, they would have secured the contract, preventing a loss to the public exchequer. The respondent No. 1 contended that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks of 70% in the technical evaluation and also had a prior negative experience with the petitioner, who had withdrawn from a previous contract after being declared L1. Furthermore, the petitioner had admitted to submitting their price bid without considering the GST amount.

Held

The Court held that the writ applicant was rightly disqualified at the technical bid evaluation stage. The Court declined to interfere with the decision of the technical expert committee, stating that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to re-evaluate technical bids. The Court noted that the petitioner had obtained only 56.25% marks in the technical evaluation, which was below the minimum requirement of 70%. Furthermore, the Court considered the respondent's prior negative experience with the petitioner, who had withdrawn from a previous tender after being declared L1. The Court also took into account the petitioner's casual approach in the current tender, as evidenced by their admission of submitting the price bid without considering the GST amount. Consequently, the Court found that the respondent had lost confidence in the petitioner, and given the complex nature of the work, it was not desirable to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner as technically qualified. The writ application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification of the writ applicant at the stage of technical bid evaluation by respondent No. 1 was arbitrary and without assigning any valid reason, thereby warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their disqualification was arbitrary and lacked any justification. They contended that their price bid was the lowest, and their disqualification led to a financial loss to the public exchequer. They also claimed to be a well-qualified contractor and suggested the disqualification was motivated by nepotism to favor the L1 bidder. Respondent No. 1's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks of 70% in the technical evaluation, which was necessary to qualify for the financial bid. They highlighted the complex nature of the work and the need for technical expertise. Additionally, the respondent cited a previous instance where the petitioner withdrew from a contract after being declared L1, and in the current tender, the petitioner admitted to submitting a price bid with errors regarding GST, leading to a loss of confidence in the petitioner's approach.