The single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court held that there is a limit of interference in administrative action. An examination of the exact methodology of testing the samples is utterly beyond the purview of judicial review by courts which are not experts in the requisite field.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner no. 1 participated in the tender issued by the respondent- Authorities for the procurement of Surgical Gloves for two years and the Petitioner no. 1 emerged eligible at the technical stage of the tender. However, the shortfall notice was issued by the Tender Issuing Authorities, granting opportunity to the participants with regard to rectify their defects/deficiencies, particularly pertaining to non-submission of proper documents.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the addition opportunity given to the bidders in order to rectify their major drawbacks was de hors the tender and gave undue advantage to otherwise ineligible bidders. It was furthermore submitted that the testing of the samples in order to assess the quality of the gloves was done by a group of doctors manually without resorting to any mechanical process.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Saheli Nandi Vs. Union of India and Others.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that the shortfall notice was issued in pursuance of Clause 3(d)(i) of Memorandum No. 2320-F(Y) issued by the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department in order to ensure that there is wide participation. It was furthermore submitted while referring to the Clause 21 of the Tender Document that the Tender Inviting Authority reserves the right to accept/reject/cancel or defer the tender submitted for any or all items, inter alia on the ground of quality. Also, the samples were tested by the experts in the field and not by the random person.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that regarding deficiencies or conclusions from the technical bid assessment, notice was given. A table was created with the names of all the tenderers who met the requirements, along with a list of any shortcomings or flaws. The bidders were asked to email the Tender Inviting Authority with their opinions and reasoning for any underbids, along with any relevant comments, and to notify them of any other bidders' deficiencies. Consequently, the bidding procedure was totally transparent to all interested parties and did not favour any one group of bidders over another. Also, the primary goal of a public tender is to draw in as many bidders as possible so that the government can acquire the desired goods at the lowest possible cost and with the highest possible standard. Therefore, notice issued cannot be said to be discriminative or vitiating the tender in any manner.
It was furthermore observed that even throughout the bid approval or rejection phase, the Tender Issuing Authority placed a high value on quality. Although the items are medical gloves that are used on patients during surgical procedures, they must pass the strictest quality test and meet the highest requirements, thus the emphasis on quality is even more justified.
It was noted that the methodology adopted by the respondent-Authorities was perfectly within the domain of rationality and reasonableness. When it comes to interpreting the tender document and the conditions of the Tender Inviting Authority for the product in question, the authority issuing the tender is without a doubt the most qualified judge.
It was furthermore noted that the petitioners and the court are not interested in learning the precise procedure used by the surgeons, who are considered to be the foremost experts in their field by the authorities that invited the tender. Whether the testing was done manually or by machines was within the domain of the tender issuing authorities. All the participants were put to such test and as such no discriminative action is found in the same.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no scope of interference in the present writ petition.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case title: Swear Healthcare Private Limited and Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Case No.: W.P.A. No. 2784 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Ms. Swati Agarwal
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, Mr. Rezanul Hossain, Mr. Parvez Hossain
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
