On 12th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justices Jasmeet Singh and Vipin Sanghi while hearing a writ petition, held that the words of the tender are to be assigned their natural meaning and that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous – they must be given meaning and their necessary significance.

The bench also held that the word “preference” in a tender is not an essential or mandatory condition of the tender, but only an additional/ optional term, and hence the threshold rejection/ disqualification of the Petitioner for not having ISO 9001:2005 & OHSAS 18001:2007 registration is completely wrong and illegal.

Facts of the case:

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs or orders, thereby seeking quashing of the process of evaluation of bids and further to direct the Respondent No.1 to review the Tender Bid of the Petitioner for E-Tender no. JMI/BD/E-NIT/No.28/2020-21, for job work for operation, maintenance and attending the essential services of Jamia Millia Islamia Campus.

Contention of the Petitioner:

The petitioner submitted the following contention:

  1. It was urged that the Petitioner submitted entire documents as required by Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The Respondent No.2 has failed to deposit the earnest money in terms of NIT and is not covered within the Clause 3(iii).
  2. It was also submitted that the Respondent No.2 has failed to file documents to prove successful completion of work in the last 7 years and additionally, failed to submit some other relevant documents as well-that were specified in the eligibility criteria of the NIT.
  3. It was argued that the impugned notice dated 25.05.2021 issued by Respondent No. 1, disqualifying the Bid of the Petitioner is contrary to the office order no. 15/3/05 of the Central Vigilance Commission.

Contention of the Respondent:

The following contention has been submitted by the respondent:

  1. It is submitted that the bid of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to submit document establishing Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems (“OHSAS”) registration.
  2. It was also submitted that the terms and conditions of the NIT that the said registration certificate be submitted by the bidder; which the Petitioner did not enclose at the time of submission of bid documents; physically, or even uploaded on the web portal of the Respondent No.1. This was an omission, which made the bid of the Petitioner technically non-responsive.
  3. The Respondent No. 1 also submits that the reason of rejection i.e. “incomplete documents submitted” was clearly mentioned in the Technical Bid Evaluation Summary uploaded on the CPP Portal, as well as in the notice.
  4. Therefore, the rejection was not in violation of the office order no. 15/3/05 of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 24.03.2005. Rather it was in accordance with the same.

Observation and judgment of the court:

The following observation has been made by the hon’ble bench of the court:

  1. It is settled proposition of law, and repeatedly held by Courts, that the words of the tender are to be assigned their natural meaning and “that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous – they must be given meaning and their necessary significance.”
  2. In this view of the matter, the stand of Respondent No.1 that they have permitted and entertained bids by consortium would be unreasonable
  3. The employer is the best person to interpret the terms of a tender, but the interpretation cannot be in a manner that would favour a particular bidder.

Hence, the court held that the impugned rejection dated 25.05.2021 on the ground of the Petitioner not having ISO 9001:2005 & OHSAS 18001:2007 registration is bad in law, and also contrary to the terms of the tender.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com 

Picture Source :

 
Anusree