Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Facts

The Jharkhand Contractors Association, through its President, filed a writ petition challenging the terms and conditions of a bid document for manpower outsourcing services issued by Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). The petitioner contended that a minimum daily wage of INR 938, exclusive of GST, stipulated in the tender notice, conflicted with the Central Government Notification prescribing a minimum wage of Rs. 964 for highly skilled overground workers. The petitioner also alleged that the bid conditions were formulated to favour the 3rd and 4th respondents, who are MSMEs, indicating mala fides. The respondents argued that tender matters are generally not entertained in public interest litigation and that interference with tender conditions is limited.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition. Regarding the alleged conflict between the bid document's minimum wage and the Central Government Notification, the Court found it premature to adjudicate such issues, especially given the bid document's disclaimer that all statutory obligations regarding wages must be complied with and non-compliance constitutes a breach. The Court also noted that it was not clear if a discrepancy even existed. Concerning the allegation of mala fides and favouritism towards MSMEs, the Court held that to sustain such allegations, pleadings must be clear and unambiguous, and the party responsible for showing favour must also be impleaded. The Court found no scope to infer undue favouritism or special treatment based on the material on record. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference in tender matters, emphasizing that the terms of invitation to tender are in the realm of contract and are not open to judicial scrutiny unless arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, citing various Supreme Court judgments. The Court concluded that given these challenges, and that the petition was filed by an association not itself a bidder, it should not be entertained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the minimum daily wage of INR 938 stipulated in the bid document, exclusive of GST, conflicts with the Central Government Notification on minimum wages, and if so, what is the consequence, particularly concerning potential GST evasion? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the interpretation of the bid document and the Central Government Notification). 2. Whether the bid conditions were formulated with mala fides to favour specific bidders, particularly MSMEs (3rd and 4th respondents)? (Question of fact and law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the stipulated minimum wage of INR 938 conflicts with the Central Government Notification of Rs. 964, potentially leading to GST evasion. They also contended that the bid conditions were designed to favour MSMEs, demonstrating mala fides in their formulation. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that public interest litigation is generally not entertained in tender matters. They asserted that the bid conditions were unambiguous and not mala fide, and that the scope for judicial interference with tender conditions is extremely limited, citing precedents like Tata Cellular v. Union of India.