Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nari Basti vs M/S Vinod on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 13th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2989 OF 2022
Between:-
MOKSH INNOVATIONS INC., 3RD FLOOR
AA COMPLEX, 5 PARK ROAD, LUCKNOW
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
/MANAGER SHRI JITENDRA SINGH BISHT
S/O SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH BISHT,
RESIDENT OF 529/491, RAHIM NAGAR
NARI BASTI, MAHANAGAR, LUCKNOW UP
AGED 34 YEARS.
....PETITIONER
(BY SH. NAVEEN K. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE).
AND
1. UNION O INDIA, THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY (PUBLIC WORKS) TO THE
GOVT. OF HP, SHIMLA-2.
3. CHIEF MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
HIMACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, SHIMLA-2.
....RESPONDENTS
(SH. BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI, FOR-1)
::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2022 20:05:55 :::CIS
-2-
(SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR R-1 & 2).
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
.
Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved against rejection of its
technical bid, submitted in response to the notice inviting
tenders dated 29.3.2022, published by respondents for
Improvement of road safety on Kalka Shimla Wangtoo Road NH
22 new NH 05 km 156/507 to 236/00 SH Providing and fixing
Thrie Beam Metal Crash Barriers road making sign boards and
road delineators and c/o R/wall and B/wall in the State of H.P.
and has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-
"i) That Annexure P-5, P-7 and P-9 may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
ii) That the respondents be directed to accept the
Technical Bid of the petitioner on the analogy
of the other three bidders, as mentioned above
and similar treatment may be meted to the
petitioner.
iii) That in the alternative, the respondents be
directed to issue fresh tender for the work after
complying with all the desired norms,
specifically as laid down by IRC."
2. The case of petitioner in nut-shell is that
respondents have wrongly rejected the technical bid of
.
petitioner. Petitioner claims his bid to be far better than the
bids of successful tenderers. As per petitioner, the
specifications provided by it, were in conformity with the
requirements of notice inviting tender. It is submitted that after
rejection of its technical bid vide Annexure P-5, petitioner
communicated with respondents, but respondents vide
Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-9, wrongly rejected the
representation of the petitioner.
3. Annexure P-5 reveals that total eight bidders
submitted their technical bids and only three bids were found
technically responsive. Remaining five bids including that of
the petitioner were rejected. Petitioner on 6.5.2022 represented
to respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-6, however, the decision
declaring bid of the petitioner as non responsive was affirmed
by respondents vide Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-9. Perusal
of document Annexure P-9 reveals that the respondents
communicated to the petitioner its stand on each objection
raised by the petitioner.
4. It is trite law that the employer being author of bid
document is the best person to interpret its terms and
conditions. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not be in a position
.
to supersede such interpretation and also cannot sit as an
expert. Recently, in M/s N.G. Project Limited Vs. M/s Vinod
Kumar Jain & ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1846 of 2022, decided
on 21.03.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the
Writ Court should re-frain itself from imposing its
decision over the decision of the employer as to
whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The
Court does not have the expertise to examine the
terms and conditions of the present day economic
activities of the State and this limitation should be
kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant
in interfering with contracts involving technical
issues as there is a requirement of the necessary ex-
pertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The
approach of the Court should be not to find fault
with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court
should examine as to whether the decision-making
process is after complying with the procedure
contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court
finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the
tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still
the Court should refrain from interfering in the
grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to
seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than
to injunct the execution of the contract. The
injunction or interference in the tender leads to
additional costs on the State and is also against
.
public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens
suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and
secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for
which the present day Governments are expected to
work."
Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition of law and
also the backdrop of the factual matrix of this case, this Court
will not act as an expert. No tangible material has been placed
to show that the respondents have not complied with the
procedure contemplated by tender condition or that the
decision making process was defective. There is no allegation of
malafide against the respondents. There is nothing to suggest
that the action of the respondents is not reasonable.
5. Keeping in view the existence of restrictive
jurisdiction of this Court in the matters of Government
Contractors and on assessment of entire material on record, we
do not find any reason to interfere with the administrative
actions of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No case of malafide or
arbitrariness is made out against the impugned action of the
official respondents.
6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed, so
also the pending application, if any.
.
(Sabina)
Judge
(Satyen Vaidya)
13th May, 2022 Judge
(kck)
r to
