M/A Om Namah Shivay Enterprises vs. The UOI And Others

Held

The Court held that the procedure followed by the respondents did not suffer from any infirmity warranting judicial review. The Court found that the introduction of the preference form was a procedural step to manage allotments when a bidder was successful in multiple bids, as stipulated by Condition 29(b) of the NIT, which limited allotment to one shop per person. The petitioner had explicitly given Booth No. 2 as their first preference and had subsequently provided an undertaking for it. The Court considered the petitioner's objection to be an afterthought, possibly driven by a preference for the location and sales prospects of Booth No. 1. The petitioner's bid of Rs. 52,000/- plus GST for Booth No. 1 was higher than respondent No. 4's bid of Rs. 50,001/- plus GST, but the allotment was made to respondent No. 4 for Booth No. 1 because the petitioner had opted for Booth No. 2 as their first preference. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Om Namah Shivay Enterprises, challenged the allotment of Booth No. 1 to respondent No. 4 (Mr. Vinay Chopra) in preference to the petitioner, who was allotted Booth No. 2. The allotment was for beverage and snacks booths for a monthly rent of Rs. 51,000/- plus 18% GST. The petitioner argued that the introduction of a preference form after bid submission but before opening violated the bidding process. The respondents stated that as per the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 13.06.2025, bidders could be successful for multiple shops, and an undertaking of preference was taken from all bidders. The petitioner had given Booth No. 2 as their first preference. Condition 29(b) of the NIT stipulated that only one shop would be allotted per person. The petitioner had quoted Rs. 52,000/- plus GST for Booth No. 1, while respondent No. 4 quoted Rs. 50,001/- plus GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the introduction of a preference form after bid submission but before bid opening violates the principles of fair bidding and competitive nature of the tender process, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondents followed the prescribed procedure for allotment, including the condition that only one shop would be allotted per person, and whether the petitioner acquiesced to the procedure and its consequences, as contended by the respondents? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the preference form, introduced after bid submission but before opening, undermined the competitive spirit of the bidding process and created an uneven playing field. They argued that their choice of booth should have been paramount. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that the preference form was a necessary step to manage situations where bidders were successful in multiple bids, as per Condition 29(b) of the NIT. They asserted that the petitioner had given Booth No. 2 as their first preference and had thus acquiesced to the allotment procedure. They also pointed to the petitioner's undertaking for Booth No. 2 as evidence of consent.