Fta Hsrp Solutions Private LTD. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioners, FTA HSRP Solutions Private Ltd. and Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., participated in a tender floated by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, for the implementation of High Security Registration Plates (HSRPs). Both petitioners are companies engaged in the manufacturing, supply, and affixing of HSRPs and claim to have fulfilled all eligibility criteria specified in the Invitation for Bids (IFB) dated 13.11.2021. However, their bids were rejected. FTA HSRP Solutions Private Ltd. learned of its bid rejection from the department's web portal without stated reasons, while Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was informed via email dated 05.02.2022 that its bid was rejected at the techno-commercial stage for not meeting eligibility criteria, though the specific criteria were not detailed. Both petitioners sought reasons for rejection and subsequently filed writ petitions before the High Court.

Held

The High Court held that the fixation of tender conditions and their interpretation are exclusively within the purview of the authority issuing the tender. The Court stated that it has very limited scope for interference in such matters as it lacks the necessary expertise to deal with technical issues involved in tender evaluations. Citing principles from cases like Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the Court emphasized judicial restraint in administrative actions and that it does not sit as an appellate authority to correct administrative decisions. The Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them, concluding that the authority that floated the IFB is best placed to decide whether the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as it involves technical considerations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can interfere with the decision of the Transport Commissioner to reject the bids of the petitioners for not meeting the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the tender document (Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contend that they met all the eligibility criteria specified in the IFB and that their bids were wrongly rejected without proper justification. They argue that the rejection was arbitrary and that the authorities failed to provide specific reasons for disqualification, hindering their ability to understand the basis of the decision. They rely on principles of natural justice and fair play in tender processes. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, through the Government Advocate, likely argued that the fixation and interpretation of tender conditions fall within the exclusive domain of the tendering authority, which possesses the necessary technical expertise. They would assert that the Court should exercise judicial restraint and not substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative authority, especially on technical matters. They may also rely on established principles regarding judicial review of administrative decisions in contractual matters, such as those laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India.