S.Shanmuganathan vs. The District Collector

Facts

The appellant, S. Shanmuganathan, participated in a tender floated by the Department of Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business for shops in a commercial complex. His tender application was rejected because he did not meet the eligibility criteria, which included having at least one year of sales experience in the last three years and a no-due certificate for GST payments up to March 2022. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the rejection order and the tender conditions, seeking consideration of his bid as the highest. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, relying on previous judgments that held participants cannot challenge tender conditions after submitting their bids. The appellant then filed this writ appeal against the Single Judge's order.

Held

The Court held that the appellant, having participated in the tender process, had no right to challenge the conditions of the tender subsequently. This principle was reiterated from the learned Single Judge's order, which relied on numerous previous judgments of the High Court. The Court found no merit in the appeal, emphasizing that challenging tender conditions after participation is a practice that is deprecated. The Court did not delve into the specific allegations made by the appellant regarding the exclusion of farmers or the allotment to professionals, as the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds. The ratio decidendi is that a tenderer is estopped from challenging the tender conditions after submitting a bid, as it amounts to approbating and reprobating. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether a participant in a tender has the right to challenge the conditions of the tender after submitting their bid, in light of the principle that such challenges are generally deprecated by courts. This issue turns on the principles of contractual fairness and the established practice of courts regarding tender processes. Petitioner's contention: The appellant argued that several conditions were designed to exclude eligible farmers and that shops were being allotted to professionals through family members, compromising the objective of the commercial complex. He sought to challenge the tender conditions based on these alleged irregularities and the rejection of his bid. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by government pleaders, supported the Single Judge's order. The primary argument, as accepted by the Single Judge and this Court, was that a party who participates in a tender process cannot subsequently challenge its conditions. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the alleged irregularities mentioned by the appellant, focusing instead on the procedural bar.