M/S. S. Square Cargo Movers PVT.LTD. vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Held

The Court held that the decision-making process undertaken by the respondents did not suffer from any patent illegality or arbitrariness. The Court referred to the principles of judicial review laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, emphasizing that the Court's role is to examine the legality of the decision-making process, not the soundness of the decision itself. The Court noted that the Tender Committee considered legal opinions and other materials, including the fact that there was no merger of M/s SS Cargo Movers, a partnership firm in which the petitioner's directors were partners. While acknowledging the petitioner's reliance on New Horizons Pvt. Ltd., the Court highlighted that the Supreme Court in that case also emphasized considering the present state of equipment and resources alongside past experience. The petitioner had not made specific pleadings regarding its present equipment or resources. The Court concluded that it is for the employer to assess the capacity of the tenderer to execute the work, and the experience clause is significant. The respondents deliberated and evaluated the petitioner's documents before concluding that the eligibility criteria were not met. Therefore, the petition was found to be sans merit.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. S. Square Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., approached the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the rejection of its technical bid for a tender issued by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). The rejection was based on the petitioner allegedly not fulfilling the 'work experience' criteria as prescribed in Clauses 6 & 7.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The NIT was for hiring surface miners and allied equipment for coal excavation. The petitioner argued that the experience of its directors in partnership firms should be considered, citing a 60% share in M/s S.S. Cargo Movers and M/s Godawari Deify SSCM JV. The estimated value of the work was Rs. 24,22,45,023.42, inclusive of GST, for a period of 730 days. The petitioner sought to set aside the technical bid evaluation summary, quash tender proceedings from the price bid stage, and be considered a qualified bidder.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid by Respondent No.2, for not fulfilling the work experience criteria as prescribed under Clauses 6 & 7.2 of the NIT, is erroneous and arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the NIT and relevant legal precedents? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Clause 6 and 7.2 of the NIT). Petitioner's Arguments: - The Technical Bid Evaluation Summary is erroneous. The petitioner submitted documents showing work experience of two similar nature works executed by M/s S.S. Cargo Movers Private Limited and M/s Godawari Deify SSCM JV, in which two directors of the petitioner company were partners with a 60% share. This experience, in proportion to their share, should have been considered as per sub-clause (viii) of Clause 6 of the NIT. - The rejection is contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in New Horizons Limited & another Vs. Union of India & ors, which states that experience of partners in a joint venture/partnership firm should be considered in proportion to their share. - Similar documents submitted in another NIT by SECL were accepted, making the rejection in this case unjust and arbitrary. Respondents' Arguments: - The technical bid was evaluated strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed in the NIT. - The petitioner cannot benefit from any mistake made in other tender proceedings; an illegality cannot be perpetuated. - The case law relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable as it dealt with the non-consideration of technical/financial worth of joint venture constituents. - The rejection is supported by reasons and the decision-making process was not arbitrary.