Farooq Hussain vs. Ut Of J And K Through Principal Secretary Public Works Deptt And Others

Held

The Court held that it would ordinarily refrain from interfering in matters relating to tenders or contracts, especially when the tender process has culminated, an allotment order has been issued, and the work is underway. Citing Supreme Court judgments in cases like "Union of India & Ors. vs. M/s. Bhaskara Construction (P) Ltd. & Ors." and "BEST & Ors.", the Court emphasized that judicial intervention is warranted only when something "very gross or palpable" is pointed out, or when there is overwhelming public interest requiring interference. The Court noted that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions where principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. It was further held that if the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and in public interest, courts will not interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment is made out. The Court also referred to "Silppi Construction Contractors vs Union of India & Anr etc etc" for the proposition that authorities are not required to give reasons for rejecting a tender at every stage. In this specific case, the petitioner's technical bid was rejected for not complying with the tender notice/SBD, and the tender process had culminated with the allotment order and commencement of work by the private respondent. Therefore, finding no merit in the petition to warrant interference at this stage, the Court dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Farooq Hussain, challenged the technical and financial bid evaluation results for an e-NIT (No. 14 of 2023-24) concerning 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 for specific months, a substantially completed certificate, and details of similar nature works and litigation history. The petitioner also contended that his own bid was wrongly rejected based on issues with the Hot Mix Plant validity and methodology. Objections filed by the petitioner were allegedly not considered. Subsequently, an allotment order was issued in favour of respondent no. 5, and the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit seeking to quash this order, claiming it was illegal and arbitrary. The respondents stated that the allotment order had been issued, and the work had commenced.

Key Issues

1. Whether the technical bid evaluation, particularly the declaration of the petitioner's bid as non-responsive and respondent no. 5's bid as responsive, was conducted in accordance with the tender conditions and corrigendums, thereby raising a question of law concerning the fairness and legality of the procurement process under the relevant provisions of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and the e-NIT. 2. Whether the respondents committed procedural irregularities and illegalities by conducting a second technical evaluation and by not considering the petitioner's objections, which raises a question of mixed law and fact regarding adherence to established tender procedures and principles of natural justice. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents conducted a second technical evaluation, which was not permissible under the SBD, and that defects regarding the Hot Mix Plant and litigation history were raised in this second evaluation, contrary to the SBD. The petitioner also contended that his objections regarding other bidders, including respondent no. 5, were not addressed before proceeding with the second technical evaluation. The petitioner relied on the principle that mandatory documents, if not uploaded, should lead to disqualification. Respondents' Arguments: The official respondents submitted that the allotment order had already been issued in favour of the successful bidder, rendering the petition misconceived. They also argued, in their counter, that the petitioner had not filed the tender in accordance with the tender notice/SBD. The judgment also cites Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that writ courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in contract matters unless gross illegality is pointed out, especially when the tender process has culminated and work is underway, citing public interest and financial implications.