December 20, 2017
The Supreme Court reversed the Judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court and upheld the order passed by single bench and cancelled the tender awarded to ineligible bidder. A Bench of Justice R. F. Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha pronounced the Judgment in the above appeal. The facts of the case are:
A notice inviting tenders (NIT) dated 16th March, 2017 by which the director
of the Institute of Nano Science and Technology, Mohali, invited percentage rate
composite bids from eligible firms/contractors in a two bid system for
construction of the Institute of Nano Science and Technology Campus at Knowledge
City, Sector 81, Mohali, consisting of research, academic and administrative
buildings together with hostel, residential, amenity and utility buildings. The
estimated cost of the said project was Rs.162.18 crores, with earnest money
payable being Rs.1.72 crores. The period of completion was stated to be 20
months and the last date for submission of tender was 10th April, 2017.
Pre-bid meetings were conducted in March, 2017 and ultimately Respondent No.1
submitted its tender on 7th April, 2017. 5 out of 16 bidders, who initially came
forward, participated in the tender process. Admittedly, a technical evaluation
report dated 24th April, 2017 stated that the eligibility criteria contained in
Clause 8 of the NIT was not met by Respondent No.1. This was reiterated by two
other expert bodies, namely, Tata Consultancy Services and the Building Works
Committee of the Institute. Respondent No.2 then addressed a letter to
Respondent No.1 informing it about its ineligibility.
In May, 2017, Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge stating that "similar work", which requires to be considered under Clause 8 of the NIT, would be work which involves not only construction of administrative blocks, but also several other buildings. Looking at the four projects, the last of which was admittedly kept out of consideration, it was found that none of the work could be said to be "similar" in nature and referring to the fact that three specialists had stated that Respondent No.1 was ineligible, the Court adopted the hands-off posture, considering the limited parameters of judicial review.
However, by the impugned judgment dated 4th August, 2017, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of Respondent No.1 and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge stating that though there was no malafides in the present case, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was incorrect and that, therefore, Respondent No.1 was clearly eligible. The appeal was then disposed of by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider Respondent No.1's bid, along with other eligible bids, and award the contract after assessing the bids on all permissible criteria.
The Court said that:
"We have already noticed that three expert committees have scrutinized
Respondent No.1's tender and found
Respondent No.1 to be ineligible. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court expressly states that no malafides are involved in the present
case. Equally, while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the
Division Bench does not state that the three expert committees have arrived at a
perverse conclusion. To merely set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge and then jump to the conclusion that Respondent No.1's tender was clearly
eligible, would be directly contrary to the judgments aforestated. Not having
found malafides or perversity in the technical expert reports, the principle of
judicial restraint kicks in, and any appreciation by the Court itself of
technical evaluation, best left to technical experts, would be outside its ken.
As a result, we find that the learned Single Judge was correct in his reliance
on the three expert committee reports. The Division Bench, in setting aside the
aforesaid judgment, has clearly gone outside the bounds of judicial review. We,
therefore, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restore that of the
learned Single Judge."
"Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant, has
stated that the Appellant is willing to match the offer of Respondent No.1. We
record the aforesaid statement and order that the tender awarded to Respondent
No.1 dated 20th August, 2017, based upon the Division Bench judgment, must be
set aside, and the award of the tender to the Appellant must be restored. We
hasten to add that it will be open to Respondent No.2 to accept Dr. Singhvi's
offer that the project will be executed at the amount indicated by Respondent
No.1."
The court allowed the appeal in the aforesaid terms.
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court dated 14.12.2017
Amendment to Written Statement, Supreme Court allowed appeal filed by the Petitioner
Supreme Court partly allowed criminal appeal and acquitted few convicts
Supreme Court reverses decision of High Court of Karnataka and enhances Motor accident award amount
De-freeze Bank Accounts, Appeal filed by Teesta dismissed by Supreme Court