Visual Securas And Infotech Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that Clause 33 of the NIT did not explicitly reveal that bidders had to specifically mention the details of deductions in the price bidding schedule. It stated that Respondent No. 3 could not be said to have complied with Clause 33 merely for not specifying and quoting in detail the rates in the "price bidding schedule," as the clause only mentioned rating rates in the "prescribed bidding schedule." The Court noted that Respondent No. 3 clearly stated in the "price bidding schedule" that the rates were inclusive of charges, statutory contributions (EPF), and GST. Upon comparison, the petitioner's total bid amount was higher than Respondent No. 3's. The Court found no illegality, malafide, or arbitrariness in the decision of Respondent No. 2. Furthermore, the Court observed that the duration of the work was for one year, ending in September 2018, and that the petitioner's bid was higher than other bidders, with Respondent No. 3 being the L-1 bidder. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the bidding process and was not inclined to examine the correctness of the calculation in adjudging the bid, given the attending facts and circumstances and the fact that it was not a requirement of the tender. The writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Visual Securas and Infotech Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a work order dated September 26, 2018, issued by the Dean, College of Fisheries (Respondent No. 2) to Respondent No. 3, North East Security. This work order was pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated May 8, 2018. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3's bid should have been rejected for failing to furnish the price bidding schedule as prescribed in Clause 33 of the NIT, specifically by not quoting rates in the prescribed format and not detailing statutory deductions. The petitioner argued that their own bid was higher than Respondent No. 3's.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bid of Respondent No. 3 ought to have been rejected for non-furnishing of the price bidding schedule as prescribed in Clause 33 of the NIT, and for not specifying details of deductions under statutory provisions. The petitioner argued that Clause 33 required specific quoting of rates and detailing of statutory deductions, which Respondent No. 3 failed to do. The revenue/State implicitly argued that the NIT did not mandate such specific detailing in the price bidding schedule, and that Respondent No. 3's bid was compliant. 2. Whether the decision of Respondent No. 2 in awarding the work order to Respondent No. 3 was illegal, malafide, or arbitrary. The petitioner argued it was arbitrary due to the non-compliance with Clause 33. The respondents implicitly argued that the decision was lawful as Respondent No. 3 was the lowest bidder (L-1) and the petitioner was L-3.