Surajbhan Engineering vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no good ground to entertain it. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, which emphasizes judicial restraint in contractual and commercial matters. The Court noted that it should only interfere when there is clear arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or bias, and that courts are generally loathe to interfere in contractual matters, especially when technical issues are involved. The Court also highlighted that initiating a fresh tender process at a later stage could cause significant loss to the public exchequer. Given that Respondent No. 3 had already been selected as the L-1 bidder, the Court found no reason to interfere with the tendering process. The principle established is that judicial review in contractual matters should be exercised with great caution, prioritizing public interest over private grievances, and that courts should not act as appellate authorities over tender evaluations unless there is a palpable error or arbitrariness.

Facts

The petitioner, Surajbhan Engineering, challenged the rejection of its bid for a tender floated by the Municipal Council, Sakti (Respondent No. 2). The tender was for the construction of a B.T. Road. The petitioner's bid was rejected solely on the ground that its GST returns for March and April 2023 were not filed, while only the last five months' returns were available. The bid of Respondent No. 3, M/s. Govind Kumar Agrawal, was accepted. The petitioner contended that this rejection was arbitrary and illegal, and that Respondent No. 3 also failed to comply with the tender conditions. The petitioner sought to quash the rejection communication and direct the opening of its financial bid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's bid for non-filing of GST returns for March and April 2023, when the tender conditions required filing of returns for the last five months, was arbitrary, illegal, and bad in law, violating Article 14 of the Constitution? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that its disqualification was without application of mind, discriminatory, arbitrary, and perverse, contrary to the tender terms. It further contended that Respondent No. 3 also failed to file the return for May 2023, making its selection wrong and non-compliant with tender conditions. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Dinesh Engg. Corpn. to argue that arbitrary decisions, even policy decisions, are violative of Article 14. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State/Respondent No. 1. However, the Court's decision implicitly considered the State's position by referencing the principles laid down in Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking.