Farooq Hussain vs. Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir Th Pr Secy Pwd And Ors

Held

The Court dismissed the petition in limini, finding no merit in it. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including those in the context of contract matters and tender processes. It emphasized that writ courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with administrative decisions in contract matters unless there is gross or palpable illegality, mala fide, or favoritism. The Court noted that the tender process had culminated in the allotment of work to the successful bidder (respondent no. 5) and that the work had commenced. Interfering at this stage, the Court reasoned, would not be in the public interest and could lead to significant financial implications for the public exchequer, including the cost of initiating a fresh tender process. The Court cited precedents stating that tender evaluations are commercial functions where principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance, and judicial review should only be exercised in furtherance of overwhelming public interest. The Court also noted that authorities inviting tenders are not always required to give reasons for rejecting a bid, as these are commercial activities. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected for not filing in accordance with the tender notice/SBD, and the Court found no grave illegality warranting interference, especially given the advanced stage of the contract execution.

Facts

The petitioner, Farooq Hussain, challenged the technical and financial bid evaluation results for an e-NIT (No. 17 of 2023-24) issued by the PWD (R&B) Department for road construction in Poonch District. The petitioner's technical bid was declared non-responsive, while respondent no. 5's bid was declared responsive. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 5 failed to upload mandatory documents, including GST 3B returns, and that his own objections were not considered. Subsequently, the contract was awarded to respondent no. 5, and the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit seeking to quash the allotment order, alleging illegality and mala fide considerations. The official respondents stated that the allotment order had been issued, and the private respondent's counsel requested to be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the technical bid evaluation process, including a second evaluation, was conducted in contravention of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the petitioner's bid being declared non-responsive on grounds not raised in the initial evaluation, and the alleged non-consideration of objections against other bidders (1.1) Whether the respondents erred in declaring the petitioner's technical bid non-responsive based on the validity of the Hot Mix Plant and litigation history, especially when these issues were not raised in the first technical evaluation. (1.2) Whether the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's objections regarding the responsiveness of other bidders, including respondent no. 5, before proceeding with the evaluation and allotment. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Standard Bidding Document did not permit a second technical bid evaluation and that defects regarding the Hot Mix Plant and litigation history were not raised in the first evaluation. He argued that his objections to other bidders were not decided, and the respondents proceeded with a flawed second evaluation. He also argued that the affidavit format in the NIT was a guide, and supplementary information could be provided separately. Respondents' arguments: The official respondents submitted that the allotment order had been issued, making the petition misconceived. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue/State regarding the merits of the petitioner's allegations about procedural irregularities, but rather focuses on the stage of the tender process and public interest.