High Command vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the DDA ought to consider the Petitioner's representation. The Court found that the Rs. 1/- profit quoted by other bidders would need to be realistically viewed by the DDA. The Petitioner's stand regarding Clauses 8 and 8(a), particularly concerning the inclusion of the bonus, also warranted consideration. The Court reasoned that if the bonus was to be included, a margin of Rs. 1/- appeared impractical and unrealistic, potentially impacting the quality of services in a commercial bidding process that ought to be fair and competitive. The DDA was directed to pass a speaking order on the Petitioner's representation within two weeks and communicate it to the Petitioner. All rights and remedies of the Petitioner concerning that order were left open. The draw of lots was stayed for four weeks from the date of the order.

Facts

The Petitioner, High Command, was a bidder in an e-tender issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for security guards. The Petitioner was ranked 'L3' and thus not called for the draw of lots. The Petitioner argued that other bidders quoted Rs. 1/- above minimum wages, which they contended was impractical given the requirement to provide facilities and was contrary to the bid scheme. The Petitioner's bid was Rs. 899/-, including a bonus and profit of Rs. 71/-. The Petitioner claimed that taxes like GST were not to be included in the bid as per Clauses 8 and 8(a), and that a bonus was to be added to the bid amount. The Petitioner's representation to the DDA was not considered. The DDA stated that the draw of lots was postponed and the Petitioner was among other bids finalized for the draw.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bids quoting Rs. 1/- above minimum wages are valid and practical, considering the requirement to provide facilities to security guards and the scheme of the bid itself? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of the tender conditions). 2. Whether taxes, including GST, are to be excluded from the bid amount as per Clauses 8 and 8(a) of the tender document? (Question of law, concerning the interpretation of contractual clauses). 3. Whether the bonus amount is to be added to the bid amount, and if so, does this render the Rs. 1/- profit margin unrealistic? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of tender conditions and commercial viability). Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that quoting Rs. 1/- above minimum wages is impractical and contrary to the bid scheme, as it does not allow for profit and provision of facilities. They relied on Clauses 8 and 8(a) stating taxes are not to be included and that the bonus should be added to the bid amount. The Petitioner contended that their representation was not considered. Revenue/State's arguments: The DDA stated that the draw of lots was postponed and that the Petitioner was 'L3' among other bids finalized for the draw. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the validity of the bids or the interpretation of the clauses.