Japro Engineering Private Limited vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Japro Engineering Private Limited, challenged the acceptance of an offer letter dated 22.11.2023 by the 2nd respondent (Telangana State Cooperative Oilseeds Growers Federation Ltd.) in favour of the 3rd respondent (Pre-Unique (India) Private Limited). This was in response to e-Tender Notice No. P&P/MECH WORK-NARMETTA/664/23-4 dated 27.09.2023. The petitioner argued that the technical evaluation was improper and sought to be declared the successful bidder. The tender was for the Design, Supply, Fabrication, Erection, and Commissioning of a Palm Oil Mill. Initially, the petitioner was informed they were successful, but later the tender was awarded to the 3rd respondent based on a higher technical score. The petitioner contended that technical scores were not specified in the tender notice and were not shared with them. An interim order was passed on 06.12.2023 suspending the acceptance of the offer letter. The respondents filed applications to vacate the interim order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, having participated in the tender after their request for relaxation of eligibility criteria was accepted and the revised tender conditions were published, cannot legally question the legality or otherwise of any condition of the tender after becoming an unsuccessful bidder. The Court referred to the judgment in N.G. Projects Limited, stating that courts should not interfere with the decision-making process of the employer unless there is total arbitrariness or malafide. The Court found that the tender process adopted by the 2nd respondent was not malafide or intended to favour someone, and the decision was made reasonably and in accordance with the tender conditions. The Court also noted that the 3rd respondent, who had the highest technical score, agreed to match the lowest commercial price, ensuring no loss to the public exchequer and that public interest was not adversely affected. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 2nd respondent's evaluation of technical scores in the e-tender process was arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the non-disclosure of evaluation parameters and scores to the petitioner, as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner, having participated in the tender after a relaxation of eligibility criteria and subsequently becoming an unsuccessful bidder, is legally permissible to question the legality of the tender conditions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the tender notice did not specify the parameters for technical scoring or the break-up of evaluation scores. They contended that the technical score was not shared, and the rejection of their bid on this basis without an opportunity to be heard was illegal and arbitrary. They relied on the principle that tender processes must be fair and transparent. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner participated in the tender after the eligibility criteria were relaxed at their request. They contended that once a bidder participates consciously in a tender process without reservations to the revised conditions, they cannot question the legality of the tender conditions after becoming an unsuccessful bidder. They also cited judgments emphasizing judicial restraint in interfering with tender processes, especially those involving technical expertise and public interest.