M/S H.S. Service Providers vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petition deserved to be dismissed. It reiterated the settled legal position from Apex Court judgments like Silppi Construction Contractors and N.G. Projects Ltd., emphasizing judicial restraint in contractual matters involving state instrumentalities. The Court stated that it should not act as a court of appeal over the appropriate authority and that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and how documents are to be interpreted. Interference is warranted only to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides, or perversity. In this case, the Court found no such ingredients to interfere with the findings of the authority. The Court noted that respondent No. 4 was declared the L1 bidder with a quoted amount of Rs. 439.42, and this decision was legally tenable based on the opinion of the competent authority. The Court also observed that the petitioner admitted lapses in their amended writ petition regarding the fulfillment of essential eligibility criteria, specifically the 'no dues certificate' and the list of workers as mandated in the tender documents, leading to their technical disqualification. Therefore, the Court concluded that the technical bid evaluation and the subsequent decision of the tender evaluating committee could not be faulted, and the petition failed in view of the limited jurisdiction in tender matters.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s H.S. Service Providers, filed a writ petition challenging the technical bid evaluation dated 27.08.2024 and a consequential order dated 03.09.2024, which rejected their technical bid without assigning reasons. They also challenged an order dated 23.10.2024 declaring respondent No. 4 as the successful bidder. The petitioner sought to quash the tender dated 05.01.2024 and direct the respondents to assess and open their financial bid. The petitioner had participated in a tender for mechanized cleaning and sanitation services. Following corrigendums, they submitted their bid. However, they were disqualified in the technical evaluation without stated reasons. A previous writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to submit a representation, which was to be decided by the Corporation. The petitioner claims their representation was not decided, and the disqualification was arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement to assign reasons, as per the petitioner's contention that no justification was provided for their disqualification, despite submitting all required documents and representations. The petitioner relies on the previous High Court order directing the respondent to communicate reasons. 2. Whether the respondent-Corporation acted with pre-determination and bias in disqualifying the petitioner and declaring respondent No. 4 as the successful bidder, as argued by the petitioner, who points to the alleged high-handed and arbitrary action. 3. Whether the respondent-Corporation correctly applied the eligibility criteria and whether the petitioner failed to meet essential criteria, as argued by the respondents, who highlighted specific criteria such as turnover and submission of a 'no dues certificate' and an affidavit regarding PF, ESIC, and Labour Law dues, which they claim the petitioner failed to fulfill.