Shakti Jan Sudhar Samiti, Delhi (Ngo)Through Its General Secretary, Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gupta, S/O vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Through Its Chairman & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the eligibility and turnover criteria in the NITs did not create unnecessary barriers for bidders and were designed to ensure that awarded contractors possessed the necessary resources and capacity to manage the public washrooms. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner (MCD vs. Pradeep Kumar Construction), stating that the observations in that case were not attracted here. The Court emphasized that in writ proceedings, it cannot step into the shoes of the administrator responsible for formulating tender conditions. Merely because the threshold criteria might be higher than in past tenders, it does not automatically render them assailable or a reason for judicial interference. The Court found no merit in the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Shakti Jan Sudhar Samiti (an NGO), filed a writ petition challenging the eligibility and turnover criteria in 24 Notices Inviting Tenders (NITs) issued by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) between February 11-15, 2021. These NITs were for the operation, management, and maintenance of Jan Suvidha Complexes. The petitioner, which has been involved in similar work since 1998, argued that the criteria were unreasonable and arbitrary, preventing eligible NGOs from participating. DUSIB, the respondent, contended that the criteria were necessary to ensure bidders had the capacity and resources to manage the public facilities effectively.

Key Issues

1. Whether the eligibility and turnover criteria prescribed in the 24 NITs issued by DUSIB are arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby violating principles of fair competition and Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the eligibility and turnover criteria were excessively high and unrealistic, effectively barring smaller NGOs, including itself, from participating in the tenders. They contended that these criteria did not bear a reasonable nexus with the nature and scope of the work, leading to a lack of fair competition. The petitioner relied on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in public tendering processes, citing precedents where stringent criteria were struck down for being unreasonable. Respondent's Arguments: DUSIB argued that the eligibility and turnover criteria were designed to ensure that only bidders with sufficient experience, capacity, and financial resources were awarded the contracts. They asserted that these conditions were necessary to guarantee the effective management of public facilities and that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the administrator in formulating tender conditions.