Santosh Kumar Bisone vs. Chief Engineer (Civil)

Held

The Court held that the description of the work in both the e-tender notices dated May 13, 2022, and August 16, 2022, was identical, leaving no room for the petitioner to be misled into believing it was for a different work. The Court found that the petitioner knowingly participated in the tender process pursuant to the e-tender notice dated August 16, 2022. Therefore, the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the tender after the work order was issued to the successful tenderer. The Court also noted that even if the first e-tender notice dated May 13, 2022, had not been formally withdrawn, it would be of no consequence. This was because, despite the stipulated 01-year period in the first notice, the petitioner was initially offered the work for only 03 months, which was later extended by a further 01 month, and the petitioner had acceded to this extension. Consequently, the Court concluded that the writ petition was not a fit case for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Bisone, participated in an e-tender issued by CSPGCL for annual repair and maintenance of railway siding lines. The initial e-tender notice dated May 13, 2022, stipulated a 12-month work completion period. The petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer, and a work order was issued on June 30, 2022, but limited the contract period to 03 months. The bid amount was Rs. 1,39,99,999.51 excluding GST. Due to the bid being 63% higher than a previous work order, authorities decided to cancel the tender and issue a fresh one. A new e-tender notice was issued on August 16, 2022, for the same work, with a 12-month period. The petitioner participated in this fresh tender, but respondent No. 6 emerged as the lowest tenderer with a bid of Rs. 135.64 lacs including GST. The petitioner challenged the fresh e-tender notice and the consequent work order issued to respondent No. 6.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of the second E-Tender Notice dated 16.08.2022 and the consequent work order to respondent No. 6 are arbitrary and illegal, given the petitioner's belief that the first tender had not been cancelled and that he was the lowest bidder in that tender? (Question of law and mixed fact and law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he was under a mistaken belief that the tender in which he participated was a different one, and that the first tender, with a one-year period where he was the lowest bidder, had not been cancelled. Therefore, the issuance of the second tender notice and the award of work to respondent No. 6 were arbitrary and illegal. Revenue/State's contention: Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 6 contended that the petitioner, having participated in the tender process, is estopped from challenging it. They argued that the description of the work and the fact that the work order issued to the petitioner, including extensions, was for a total of 04 months, clearly indicated that the subsequent tender was for the same work. They also submitted that the petitioner's bid was exorbitant, as evidenced by the significant reduction in the work value in the second tender.