Farooq Hussain vs. Ut Of J And K Through Principal Secretary Public Works Deptt And Others
Held
The Court held that it should ordinarily refrain from interfering with administrative decisions in tender matters, particularly when public interest is involved, unless a grave illegality, mala fide, or favoritism is established. The Court noted that the tender process had culminated with the allotment order on August 31, 2023, and the successful bidder had already commenced work. Citing Apex Court judgments in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, and Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that tender evaluations are commercial functions where principles of equity and natural justice are secondary to bona fide decisions in public interest. Interfering at this stage, when the contract is underway, would not be in public interest and could lead to significant financial implications for the exchequer. The Court found no merit in the petition to warrant interference at this stage.
Facts
The petitioner, Farooq Hussain, challenged the technical and financial bid evaluation results for an e-NIT (No. 16 of 2023-24) concerning road upgradation in Poonch District. The petitioner's technical bid was declared "non-admitted" for "Not complied with technical specification," 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 on August 31, 2023, and work had commenced. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit seeking to quash the allotment order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents committed illegality and irregularity by conducting a second technical evaluation, thereby declaring the petitioner's bid non-responsive, contrary to the Standard Bidding Document (SBD)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily and with malice by not considering the petitioner's objections regarding other bidders, including respondent no. 5, before proceeding with the second technical evaluation and awarding the contract? Petitioner's Arguments: - The SBD did not permit a second technical bid evaluation, which was resorted to by the respondents. - Defects regarding the Hot Mix Plant and litigation history were not raised in the first evaluation, making the second evaluation contrary to the SBD. - Petitioner's objections to other bidders were not decided before the second evaluation commenced. - The affidavit in Part-IV of the SBD was a format, and the petitioner submitted information on that format. Respondents' Arguments: - The allotment order had already been issued in favour of the successful bidder, making the petition misconceived. - The Apex Court has held that a writ court should refrain from interfering in tender matters unless gross illegality is pointed out, especially when the contract is underway and public interest is involved. - The rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was in terms of the tender notice/SBD. - The tender process had culminated with the allotment order and commencement of work.
Sections Cited
Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27, Section 28, Section 29, Section 30, Section 31, Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 35, Section 36, Section 37, Section 38, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41, Section 42, Section 43, Section 44, Section 45, Section 46, Section 47, Section 48, Section 49, Section 50, Section 51, Section 52, Section 53, Section 54, Section 55, Section 56, Section 57, Section 58, Section 59, Section 60, Section 61, Section 62, Section 63, Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 67, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section 72, Section 73, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 77, Section 78, Section 79, Section 80, Section 81, Section 82, Section 83, Section 84, Section 85, Section 86, Section 87, Section 88, Section 89, Section 90, Section 91, Section 92, Section 93, Section 94, Section 95, Section 96, Section 97, Section 98, Section 99, Section 100, Section 101, Section 102, Section 103, Section 104, Section 105, Section 106, Section 107, Section 108, Section 109, Section 110, Section 111, Section 112, Section 113, Section 114, Section 115, Section 116, Section 117, Section 118, Section 119, Section 120, Section 121, Section 122, Section 123, Section 124, Section 125, Section 126, Section 127, Section 128, Section 129, Section 130, Section 131, Section 132, Section 133, Section 134, Section 135, Section 136, Section 137, Section 138, Section 139, Section 140, Section 141, Section 142, Section 143, Section 144, Section 145, Section 146, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 150, Section 151, Section 152, Section 153, Section 154, Section 155, Section 156, Section 157, Section 158, Section 159, Section 160, Section 161, Section 162, Section 163, Section 164, Section 165, Section 166, Section 167, Section 168, Section 169, Section 170, Section 171, Section 172, Section 173, Section 174, Section 175, Section 176, Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, Section 183, Section 184, Section 185, Section 186, Section 187, Section 188, Section 189, Section 190, Section 191, Section 192, Section 193, Section 194, Section 195, Section 196, Section 197, Section 198, Section 199, Section 200, Section 201, Section 202, Section 203, Section 204, Section 205, Section 206, Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 210, Section 211, Section 212, Section 213, Section 214, Section 215, Section 216, Section 217, Section 218, Section 219, Section 220, Section 221, Section 222, Section 223, Section 224, Section 225, Section 226, Section 227, Section 228, Section 229, Section 230, Section 231, Section 232, Section 233, Section 234, Section 235, Section 236, Section 237, Section 238, Section 239, Section 240
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 2307/2023 CM No. 5372/2023
Farooq Hussain, age 46 years S/O Talib Hussain, R/O W.No.7, Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch. .....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocates
v/s
UT of Jammu & Kashmir through Principal Secy. PWD (R&B), Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) Deptt. Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) Circle, Rajouri-Poonch, HQ Rajouri.
Executive Engineer PWD (R&B) Division, Poonch.
Mohd. Mashooq, Contractor, Village Seri Khawaja Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-1 to 4 Mr. F. A. Natnoo, Advocate for R-5
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT 22.09.2023
Petitioner through the medium of this petition has sought the following reliefs: a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing result of Technical Evaluation dated 17.08.2023 as well as revised result of Technical Evaluation dated 25.08.2023 issued by respon
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.