M/S Ravi Chouhan Through Proprietor Ravi Chouhan vs. Indore Municipal Corporation

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to comply with a mandatory condition of the tender document. Clause 2, Sub-clause 3, Bullet Point No.4 explicitly required the submission of an affidavit stating that the bidder had read, understood, and willingly accepted all terms and conditions of the tender. The affidavit submitted by the petitioner only certified the correctness of submitted documents and his non-blacklisted status, but did not contain the specific declaration regarding understanding and acceptance of tender conditions. The Court found this to be a non-fulfillment of an essential and compulsory requirement, as indicated by the term "अिनवाय" (compulsory) in the tender document. Consequently, the Court held that the respondents had not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner's bid. The rejection was considered bona fide and in the public interest, as eight other bidders were also rejected for similar non-compliance. The Court found no discrimination and no error in the respondents' decision. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ravi Chouhan, a registered civil contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his technical bid for providing and operating private tankers for municipal services. The Indore Municipal Corporation issued a tender on 02.06.2025 for a 5-year period. The petitioner submitted his bid on 28.06.2025, along with an affidavit dated 27.06.2025. Out of 34 bidders, 9 bids, including the petitioner's, were rejected. The petitioner's bid was technically disqualified without reasons. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary, non-speaking, and lacked an opportunity for him to be heard. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to submit a mandatory affidavit stating he had read, understood, and accepted the tender conditions, as required by Clause 2, Sub-clause 3, Bullet Point No.4 of the tender document.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid by the Indore Municipal Corporation was arbitrary, non-speaking, and a colourable exercise of power, thereby violating the petitioner's right to equal participation and livelihood, in light of the petitioner's submission of all requisite documents and an affidavit certifying their authenticity and his non-blacklisting status? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of administrative law and tender conditions). Petitioner's arguments: The rejection was arbitrary and unsupported by reasons. The petitioner had submitted all required documents, including a valid affidavit. No opportunity for hearing was provided before disqualification. The tender was not restricted to a single contractor, and the exclusion of the petitioner was unjust. Respondents' arguments: The petitioner failed to comply with a mandatory requirement of Clause 2, Sub-clause 3, Bullet Point No.4 of the tender document, which required an affidavit confirming the bidder had read, understood, and accepted all tender conditions. The affidavit submitted by the petitioner only certified the authenticity of documents and his non-blacklisted status, not acceptance of tender conditions. Therefore, the rejection was legal and bona fide.