Ismailkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan vs. The State Of Gujarat, Through The Secretary

Held

The Court held that the offer letter dated September 7, 2018, issued by respondent No. 3 was not arbitrary, illegal, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that the tender conditions explicitly granted the Executive Director sole discretion to accept or refuse tenders without assigning reasons. The offer letter was merely an invitation to the petitioner to match the higher bid, and no decision affecting the petitioner's rights had been taken. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, citing precedents like Tata Cellular and Michigan Rubber, and stated that it cannot substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. The petitioner had not demonstrated any mala fide intention or irrationality in the decision-making process. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that respondent No. 3 should accept their tender at their quoted price was not sustainable. The Court found no infringement of any right of the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner participated in a tender process initiated by the Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Limited (respondent No. 3) for operating a Pay and Parking facility. The tender conditions stipulated an upset price of Rs. 4,50,000 plus GST and reserved the sole discretion of the Executive Director to accept or refuse tenders. The petitioner offered Rs. 4,62,000 plus GST. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 issued an offer letter dated September 7, 2018, asking the petitioner to match the price of the H1 bidder, Shree Victoria Garden Gujri Seva Trust, which had offered Rs. 5,75,000 plus GST. The petitioner, aggrieved by this, made a representation requesting their tender be accepted at their quoted price. When no decision was taken, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the offer letter and seeking a direction to award the contract at their quoted price.

Key Issues

1. Whether the offer letter dated September 7, 2018, issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to match the price of the H1 bidder, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the offer letter was arbitrary and illegal as it demanded them to match a higher bid when their own bid was acceptable as per the tender conditions. They argued that respondent No. 3 had acted unfairly by not accepting their tender at their quoted price and instead issuing an offer letter that effectively changed the terms. They sought a direction to award the contract at their original quoted price. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent No. 3 argued that they had acted within their discretion as per the tender conditions. They contended that the decision-making process was fair and reasonable, and the court should not interfere with administrative decisions in tender matters unless they are mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India and Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in tender processes.