M/S R. Priyanshi Construction And Facility vs. The State Of Mp K

Held

The Court held that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. The Court relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Vinayak Purshotta Dube (supra) and the Calcutta High Court's judgment in S.A. Enterprises (supra). The essence of these judgments, as interpreted by the Court, is that courts should exercise restraint and caution in intervening in contractual matters involving state instrumentalities, unless the decision is arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court emphasized that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and that its interpretation of tender documents should be accepted unless there is perversity. In the present case, the Court found no ingredients of arbitrariness, irrationality, or bias to justify interference with the findings of the authority. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not impleaded the L1 bidder, Shri Barfani Security Service, as a respondent, and that the respondent-Corporation had sought and received an opinion from the competent authority regarding the validity of the bid amount submitted by Shri Barfani Security Services, which was subsequently approved. Therefore, the Court concluded that no case was made out to interfere in the writ petition, and the petitioner stood technically disqualified.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R. Priyanshi Construction and Facility, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its technical bid by the respondent-Corporation for outsourcing cleaning and sweeping works. The Corporation had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) with several corrigendums modifying the bid submission dates. The petitioner submitted its bid along with all necessary documents. Subsequently, the respondent-Corporation, vide an order dated 23.10.2024, disqualified the petitioner in the technical evaluation without assigning any specific reasons. The petitioner contended that the Corporation had previously assured that reasons for rejection would be provided and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard. The Corporation's stated reason for rejection was that the petitioner failed to fulfill conditions laid down in General Eligibility Criteria, specifically Clause Nos. 3, 4, and 9.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent-Corporation was justified in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner without assigning specific reasons and without providing an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the Corporation's action was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice, citing a previous submission by the Corporation to consider representations and assign reasons. The petitioner also argued that the rejection lacked justification and sought an opportunity to be heard. The respondents, implicitly, argued that the rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to meet the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the tender documents. 2. Whether the petitioner fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria, specifically Clause Nos. 3 (EPF Registration), 4 (ESIC Certificate), and 9 (Affidavit regarding no dues to PF, ESIC, and Labour Law), as argued by the respondent-Corporation? The respondent-Corporation argued that the petitioner did not fulfill these criteria, leading to disqualification. The petitioner's stance, though not explicitly detailed in the provided text regarding these specific clauses, was that their bid should have been considered and that the rejection was unjustified.