Sh. Shyam Singh Choudhary And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' tender was not arbitrary and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court found that the concerns raised by the Ministry of Finance regarding recurring liabilities and the absence of a composite quotation were justified. The petitioners had quoted a "bare shell" rate of rent and separate rates for other components like flooring, ceiling, maintenance, and services, which they offered to negotiate. The Ministry's view was that this approach, especially quoting a bare shell rent presumably contrary to other bidders, made the offer unacceptable. The Court reiterated that Article 226 does not empower it to review the merits of a decision but rather the decision-making process for mala fide, procedural irregularity, impropriety, or illegality. None of these elements were found present. The Court concluded that directing the acceptance of the petitioners' bid would amount to enforcing a non-existent agreement, which is untenable. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, Sh. Shyam Singh Choudhary and another, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their tender for letting out premises to the Additional Director General of GST (Intelligence) in Gurugram. The petitioners had submitted an offer along with six other bidders. Their bid was initially considered, with correspondence indicating tentative acceptance and a draft lease deed being prepared. However, the tender was ultimately rejected on March 1, 2019. The petitioners contended that this rejection was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, especially given the prolonged pendency of the decision and the quoted rent being lower than the assessed value. The respondents argued that no final decision was taken as it required approval from the Ministry of Finance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioners' tender for letting out premises to the Department of GST was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, considering the prolonged correspondence and tentative acceptance. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the respondents acted arbitrarily by rejecting their tender after extended correspondence, including a letter dated September 27, 2018, which stated their bid appeared tentatively acceptable. They highlighted that the acceptable rent as per CPWD Manual was ₹143 per sq. ft., the respondent's valuation was ₹122.50 per sq. ft., and their negotiated bid was ₹117 per sq. ft. They contended that the ultimate rejection on March 1, 2019, after such a long delay, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through their counter affidavit and during the hearing, submitted that no final decision was taken as it was subject to the approval of the competent authority, the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry's concerns, as revealed from the tender file, were primarily about the recurring liability of certain rent components and the lack of a composite or lumpsum quotation for each floor. The Addl. DG also opined that the offer was not acceptable as a lumpsum monthly rent was quoted, and a bare shell rent was indicated, possibly contrary to other bids.