Tiong Woon Project And Contracting INDIA PVT LTD vs. Nuclear Power Corporation Of INDIA LTD

Facts

The petitioner, Tiong Woon Project and Contracting India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its technical bid for a tender floated by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) for hiring heavy-duty crawler cranes for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project. The tender, with an estimated value of Rs. 12,38,93,220/-, required bidders to meet specific pre-qualification criteria. The petitioner claims to have met all criteria and submitted the lowest price bid (L1). However, NPCIL disqualified the petitioner on February 6, 2021, citing non-compliance with Clause 15.4 of the tender notice, which required uploading supporting documents authorizing the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) holder to bid. The petitioner argued that its Director, who held the DSC, was authorized to bid and had uploaded a GST certificate as proof. Despite this, the contract was awarded to the fourth respondent, who quoted a higher price.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was justified. The Court found that Clause 18.1(d) of the NIT explicitly required bids to be properly signed by an authorized signatory as per Clause 15.4. While the petitioner argued that Clause 15.4(b) did not apply to private limited companies, the Court noted that the respondents emphasized the need for proper authorization in terms of Clause 15.4. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Central Coalfields Limited vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others, which stressed that tender conditions cannot be ignored and that employers have the authority to enforce them. The Court held that deviating from mandatory tender conditions would lead to arbitrariness. Finding no exceptional grounds of arbitrariness, illegality, or mala fides, the Court declined to intervene in the tender process, stating that public projects should not be delayed by unsuccessful bidders. The Writ Petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was justified under Clause 15.4 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), which pertains to the authorization of the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) holder? The petitioner argued that Clause 15.4(b) specifically applied to partnership firms, joint ventures, and consortiums, and not to a Private Limited Company. Therefore, no additional authorization document was required beyond the Director's authority, evidenced by the GST certificate. The petitioner contended that the rejection was hypertechnical and intended to favour the fourth respondent. The respondents (NPCIL) argued that Clause 18.1(d) of the NIT mandated that bids must be properly signed by an authorized signatory as per Clause 15.4, and the petitioner failed to provide the necessary authorization, leading to a valid rejection. They relied on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing adherence to tender conditions and judicial restraint in interfering with administrative decisions.