Petitioner challenged cancellation of their tender due to low bids compared to reserve prices. Court found reasonable grounds for cancellation under a sole bidder scenario with low offer. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~34.
M S ANTARCTICA PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Adv.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, Legal Assistant DMRC, Mr. Ashish Aman Bhaga, AM/Civil, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AM/Contracts DMRC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:47:59
W.P.(C) 9161/2024
Page 1 of 4
which date was extended till 10th April, 2024. He states that the Petitioner filed its bid on 9th April, 2024 by fulfilling all the requirements along with deposit of tender fee & tender security.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:47:59
W.P.(C) 9161/2024
Page 2 of 4
“ 6. DISCUSSIONS ON THE HIGHEST OFFER
The offer received from sole technically compliant bidder i.e. M/s Antarctica Properties Company Limited (1/2) is compared with the Reserve Price and NPV as below:
| Particulars | Reserve Price (Rs/sqm/month) |
NPV-DMRC (INR Crore) |
|---|---|---|
| As per DMRC’s Reserve | 1187.80 | 39.56 |
| Price | ||
| As per offer submitted by | 255 | 8.65 |
| H1 Bidder | ||
| %age above/below | 78.53% below | 78.14% below |
The Tender Committee has noted that the highest offer received from technically compliant bidder i.e. M/s Antarctica Properties Company Limited (1/2) with lease fee rate of INR 255/- per sqm per month is 78.53% lower than the Reserve Price of INR 1187.80/- per sqm per month by DMRC (CP-1984). The NPV to be realized by DMRC works out to INR 8.65 Crores which is 78.14% lower than the NPV of INR 39.56 Crores, which has been found to be on the lower side & hence not acceptable to DMRC (CP-1985).
7. RECOMMENDATION
In view of above discussions, the Tender Committee considers the offer of M/s Antarctica Properties Company Limited (1/2) at monthly lease fee rate of INR 255 (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty-Five only) per square meter, on lower side and recommends to discharge the present call of tender. Acceptance, rejection or modification of the recommendations of the Tender Committee is within the power of D(O&S) in terms of SOP Clause PD2 (2.3).”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:47:59
W.P.(C) 9161/2024
Page 3 of 4
“....3.20.10 However, the confirmation of the highest Bid shall be at the sole discretion of the DMRC who does not bind itself to confirm to the highest Bid and reserves the right to reject the Bid without assigning any reasons whatsoever.
xxx xxx xxx
3.21.3 The Bidder hereby voluntarily and unequivocally agrees that DMRC shall not be under any obligation or be liable for any acceptance, rejection or annulment of any/all Bids and the Bidder shall not to seek any claims, damages, compensation or any other consideration whatsoever on this account, from DMRC.....”
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 10, 2024
N.Khanna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.07.2024 18:47:59
W.P.(C) 9161/2024
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the assignment of tender by a public authority to a sole technically compliant bidder is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 when the offered financial bid is significantly below the reserve
Whether the petitioner's bid was reasonable enough to warrant the discharge of the tender call?
If the petitioner is a sole bidder with a low bid, should the petition be dismissed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mihan India Limited v. GMR Airports Limited & OrsReferred¶8
Mihan India Limited v. GMR Airports Limited & Ors , (2022) SCC Online SC 574 · Who else cites this
M S ANTARCTICA PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
Tushar Rao Gedela
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
