Gujarat High Court
Shanti Structure Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8540/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8540 of 2025
==========================================================
SHANTI STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDEEP R LIMBANI(5977) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VAISHNAVI VERMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner, has prayed for the following
main reliefs:
"b) To quash and set aside the communication/decision 16.06.2025 passed dated the
by Respondent No. 2 at Annexure-F; (Colly)
(c) To hold and declare the bid of the petitioner as qualified and valid;
(d) To consequentially directing the respondent no.2 to proceed further to open the
price bid of petitioner and conclude the tender process in accordance with RFP;"
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Limbani has submitted that
the respondent has committed an error in rejecting the Technical Bid of
the present petitioner by resorting to the clause No.2.2.2.2(i) of the RFP
since the petitioner had already supplied the completion certificate as per
requirement of the said Clause pointing out that the petitioner had
constructed the New ATC Tower-cum-Technical Block, Fire Station at
Dabh Airport, Indore and the said work was undertaken from 15/09/2022
and actual completion was made on 14/05/2024. It is submitted that the
tender amount was Rs.43.00 Crore, excluding GST, and the gross amount
of completed work is Rs.52.53 Crore. Thus, it is submitted that though
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8540/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the petitioner has fulfilled the clause No.2.2.2.2(i), the respondent no.2
has declared the technical bid as "unresponsive". It is, therefore,
submitted that the present writ petition may be allowed by setting aside
the impugned communication.
3. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Vaishnavi Verma, appearing for
respondents no.1 to 4 has submitted that the petitioner has only
undertaken one construction work of New ATC Tower, which does not
qualify the Category no.4 of Clause 2.2.2.5, which mentions about the
categories and factors for evaluation of technical capacity. It is submitted
that the Financial Bid of the petitioner is not opened and the respondent is
not aware as to whether the bid of the petitioner was lower than the
private respondent no.5. She would therefore submit that the petition
may not be entertained and may be dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, it appears that the case of the petitioner hinges on one document
i.e. at page no.110, which is the completion certificate produced by the
petitioner as required under clause No.2.2.2.2(i) which reads thus:
"2.2.2.2 Technical Capacity
(i) For demonstrating technical capacity and experience (the "Technical Capacity"),
the Bidder shall, over the past 5 (five) financial years preceding the Bid Due Date,
have received payments for construction of Eligible Project(s), or has undertaken
construction works by itself in a PPP project, such that the sum total thereof, as
further adjusted in accordance with clause 2.2.2.5 (i) & (ii), is more than Rs.15
Crore, (Rupees Fifteen Cr. Only) (the "Threshold Technical Capacity")."
5. As per the aforesaid clause, the bidder shall, over the last five
financial years preceding the Bid Due Date, have received payments for
construction of Eligible Project(s) or has undertaken construction works
by itself in a Public-Private partnership (PPP) project such as further
adjusted in accordance with clause 2.2.2.5 (i) & (ii), is more than Rs.15
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8540/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Crore.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has asserted that case of the
petitioner will fall in the first part of Clause (I), as he has completed the
project of New ATC Tower cum Technical Block, Dabh Airport, Indore
and the date of commencement of work was 15/09/2022 and completion
date is 14/05/2024. In our considered opinion, the same does not meet
with the requirement of Clause 2.2.2.2 (i). Unquestionably, the petitioner
has not produced anything to show that the petitioner has received
payment for construction of eligible projects during the last five financial
years.
7. Moreover, as per Clause no.2.2.2.5, which mentions about the
categories and factors for evaluation of technical capacity, the category
mentioned therein pertains to the project of highways, whereas, the
petitioner has undertaken the project of construction of New ATC Tower
cum Technical Block, Dabh Airport, Indore. Thus, this Court does not
find any convincing reasons to interfere with the commercial wisdom of
respondent no.2 rejecting the case of the petitioner as per the requirement
of RFP. In the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Ors., (2007)
14 SCC 517, the Supreme Court, after survey of array of judgments, has
prescribed two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in the
tender matters. They same are: -
"22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or
intended to favour someone;
or
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the
court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably
and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;"
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8540/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226.
Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of
licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require
a higher degree of fairness in action ."
8. Thus, the petitioner fails the aforementioned tests. Hence, we
restrict ourselves in replacing the subjective satisfactions of the
respondent no.2. Accordingly, the petition does not merit acceptance and
it is REJECTED at the threshold.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 17
