Jain Home Industries Indore Through Proprieter Shri Nilay Kumar Jain vs. Jail Mukhaylaya

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Director General, Jail, Bhopal, to consider the petitioner's grievance before finalizing the tender. The Court noted that the respondents' reply indicated the tender was not yet finalized and that the proceedings had been forwarded to the Director General of Jail. The Court further directed that if the Director General upheld the rejection of the petitioner's tender, a reasoned and speaking order must be passed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's allegations regarding mala fide rejection or collusion among bidders, focusing instead on ensuring the grievance was addressed by the appropriate authority before finalization. The specific number of samples required or submitted was not definitively established by the Court as a decisive factor.

Facts

The petitioner, Jain Home Industries, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its tender for the supply of food and vegetables to various jails in Madhya Pradesh for the year 2022-2023. The tender was issued by Respondent No. 1, the Jail Mukhalaya, Jail Mahanirikshak. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the grounds of not submitting samples of grains, food, and vegetables as per Condition No. 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The petitioner contended that the rejection was mala fide, alleging that the successful bidders were relatives and shared common contact details. The petitioner had also submitted a representation and legal notice to Respondent No. 1, which remained undecided. The respondents claimed the petitioner failed to comply with Condition No. 10 and submitted fewer samples than the successful bidder.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was arbitrary and mala fide, violating principles of natural justice and fair competition, particularly in light of allegations of collusion among successful bidders? - Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that its tender was rejected on technical grounds without proper consideration, and that the successful bidders were related and shared common contact information, suggesting a mala fide intent to favour them. They also highlighted that their representation and legal notice remained undecided. The petitioner relied on the principle of fair play in tender processes. - Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to comply with Condition No. 10 of the NIT, which required the submission of samples. They stated that the tender was not yet finalized and that the matter was pending with the Director General of Jail.