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

Held

The Court dismissed the petition in limini, along with interim applications. The Court held that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with administrative decisions in contract matters, particularly when public interest is involved and the tender process has culminated with the allotment of work and commencement of execution. The Court cited Apex Court judgments in "BEST & Ors" (2023 LiveLaw SC 467), "Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India" (2005) 1 SCC 679, "Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd." (2000) 2 SCC 617, and "Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa" (2007) 14 SCC 517, emphasizing that judicial review in tender matters should be exercised with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest, not merely to correct procedural errors or protect private interests. The Court also referred to "Silppi Construction Contractors vs Union of India & Anr" (2020) 16 SCC 489, stating that authorities are not always required to give reasons for rejecting tenders. Given that the allotment order was issued on August 31, 2023, and the private respondent had already started work, the Court found no merit in the petition to warrant interference at that stage, especially in the absence of a grave illegality, mala fide, or favoritism. The Court noted that the petitioner's technical bid was rejected for not complying with the tender notice/SBD.

Facts

The petitioner, Farooq Hussain, challenged the technical and financial bid evaluation results for a road construction project in Poonch District, initiated by e-NIT No. 14 of 2023-24. The petitioner's technical bid was declared "non-responsive" by respondent no. 3, 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 for January to April, and similar nature certificates for the last five years. The petitioner also contended that his own bid was wrongly rejected due to issues with a Hot Mix Plant certificate and methodology. Objections filed by the petitioner were allegedly not considered. Subsequently, an allotment order was issued in favour of respondent no. 5 on August 31, 2023, and the work commenced. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit to quash this allotment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the technical evaluation of bids, 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 notice and Standard Bidding Document (SBD)? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the clauses within the e-NIT and SBD concerning mandatory document submission and bid evaluation criteria. 2. Whether the respondents committed gross illegality or mala fide in conducting a second technical evaluation and rejecting the petitioner's bid, especially after the allotment order was issued and work commenced? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents resorted to a second technical evaluation without justification, contrary to the SBD. He contended that defects regarding the Hot Mix Plant and litigation history were not raised in the first evaluation, making the second evaluation illegal. The petitioner also argued that his objections regarding other bidders, including respondent no. 5, were ignored. He 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, through case law, that High Courts should exercise caution in interfering with tender processes, especially when public interest is involved and the contract is underway, unless gross illegality or mala fide is established. They cited precedents emphasizing that tender evaluations are commercial functions and courts should not interfere merely on procedural aberrations or to protect private interest at the cost of public interest.