M/S Pratham National Security Through Its Proprietor Shri Kuldeep Mishra vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, refraining from interfering in the contractual matter. The Court noted that the petitioner had quoted its bid price by considering 26 days for wages instead of 30, contrary to a circular issued by the Collector, Dewas. While acknowledging the petitioner's claims of irregularities in Respondent No. 6's bid, the Court found that the process adopted by the authority could not be termed mala fide, as there were no specific pleadings to that effect. The Court also held that the technical errors in the petitioner's bid, or even minor irregularities in Respondent No. 6's bid, did not render the process arbitrary or irrational to the extent that no responsible authority could have reached such a decision. Furthermore, the Court considered that interfering at this stage, given the nature of the outsourced services, would affect public interest. The work order had already been issued to Respondent No. 6, and the work was ongoing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pratham National Security, challenged an order dated November 7, 2022, accepting the tender bid of Respondent No. 6 for providing Housekeeping, Support Staff, and Computer Operation Services in District Dewas. The petitioner, claiming to be the L-1 bidder, was not awarded the tender. The petitioner alleged irregularities in Respondent No. 6's bid, including discrepancies in its legal status (Proprietorship, Partnership, Private Ltd. Company) and submitted documents pertaining to different entities. The petitioner's own tender was rejected because its quoted rates for consumables were less than 10% and it calculated wages for 26 days instead of 30. The petitioner sought cancellation of the tender awarded to Respondent No. 6.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender process adopted by the respondents was arbitrary and irrational, leading to the award of the contract to Respondent No. 6 despite alleged irregularities in its bid, and whether the petitioner's bid was wrongly rejected? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 6 submitted tender documents with conflicting information regarding its legal status (Proprietorship, Partnership, Private Ltd. Company) and annexed experience certificates from different entities, violating eligibility criteria. The petitioner argued that its own bid rejection, based on a minor calculation error regarding wages for 26 days instead of 30, was an arbitrary and irrational decision, especially since it was the L-1 bidder and other conditions were met. The petitioner relied on the principle that minor technical defects should not lead to disqualification. Respondents' arguments: The State and other respondents argued that interference in contractual matters should be limited unless public interest is involved or there are allegations of mala fides, which were not sufficiently pleaded. They asserted that the petitioner wrongly calculated its price bid by considering 26 days for wages, ignoring a circular mandating 30 days. They also contended that any minor irregularities by Respondent No. 6 could be overlooked, and that the work order had already been issued and the work commenced.