Builders Association Of INDIA Indore Cenre Through Its Chairman Shri Arun Kumar Jain vs. Housing And Environment Department

Held

The Court held that while an association can raise grievances of its members, it must disclose its membership strength and the number of aggrieved members. The respondent's submission that several bids were received indicated that not all members were aggrieved. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in cases like Montecarlo Limited and N.G. Projects Limited, emphasizing that Writ Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with contractual terms unless they are demonstrably arbitrary, mala fide, or irrational. The Court noted that the tender inviting authority is the best judge of its requirements and that bidders cannot challenge conditions that do not suit them. The eligibility criteria, when applied uniformly to all bidders and justified by the nature of the work, do not warrant judicial interference. The Court found no case made out for interference, thus dismissing the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Builders Association of India Indore Centre, challenged the eligibility criteria in a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated May 13, 2022, issued by the Indore Development Authority (IDA) for the design and construction of a flyover. The NIT required bidders to have completed one work of a flyover/ROB/grade separator/major bridge with a PSC superstructure costing not less than Rs. 26 Crores (excluding GST) or two such works costing less than Rs. 26 Crores each, within the last 7 years. Additionally, a minimum average annual turnover of Rs. 35 Crores for civil construction over the last five financial years was mandated. The petitioner contended these criteria were arbitrary and designed to favor specific firms, citing Central Vigilance Commission norms that encourage maximum participation. Representations to modify the conditions were made but not heeded, leading to the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, an association of builders, has the locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria of the NIT. (Question of law) 2. Whether the eligibility criteria stipulated in the NIT are arbitrary, mala fide, or tailor-made, thereby violating principles of natural justice and encouraging limited participation. (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The eligibility criteria are stringent and arbitrary, designed to accommodate specific firms, contrary to CVC norms which aim for maximum participation. - Similar works in earlier tenders by IDA, Municipal Corporation, State Government, and NHAI did not prescribe such restrictive criteria. - Representations seeking modification of the conditions were ignored. Respondent's (Indore Development Authority) Arguments: - The association lacks locus standi to file the petition as several bids were received, indicating not all members are aggrieved. - Aggrieved members who do not meet the criteria are competent to file their own petitions. - The Writ Court should not act as an appellate authority to examine tender terms and conditions, which are within the jurisdiction of the authority based on the nature of work and experience. - The authority has the freedom to fix eligibility criteria unless found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or tailor-made.