Petitioner challenged the acceptance of a transport tender bid by Respondent No.3 due to alleged material omissions and illegible documents. The Court held that the bid was legible and the respondent was financially viable, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.
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.
-1-
CWP No.18257 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.18257 of 2016 Date of decision: 07.11.2016
Jagdeep Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation of India and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J.
Respondents No.1 and 2 invited bids from qualified and competent parties for transport contractor for a period of two years for Centre Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, fixing the cut off date as 20.06.2016 for submission of the bid. Pursuant to the tender inquiry, petitioner and respondent No.3 submitted their respective bids along with requisite documents for being appointed as transport contractor for Nihal Singh Wala. After opening of the tender documents on 21.06.2016, respondent No.3 was found to be technically and financially suitable to be awarded the said tender, despite alarming omissions in the bid submitted by him in pursuance to the tender inquiry instructions and general instructions issued by respondent No.1.
Ravinder Singh 2016.12.06 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
-2-
CWP No.18257 of 2016
226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus against the inaction of respondents No.1 and 2 in not disqualifying the technical bid submitted by respondent No.3 in response to the E-tender dated 20.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2 and in pursuance to the tender inquiry dated 21.06.2016 (Annexure P-2). Further prayer has been made for declaring the action of respondents No.1 and 2 as illegal and arbitrary for having allotted the contract of transport contractor Nihal Singh Wala to respondent No.3.
-3-
CWP No.18257 of 2016
contractual disputes. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers, like the petitioner, with imaginary grievances to persuade the Courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review are not permitted. There appears to be no mala fide on the parts of respondents No.1 and 2 in accepting the bid of respondent No.3.
respondents.
( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE
November 07, 2016 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) R.S. JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Ravinder Singh 2016.12.06 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review to interfere with the tender authorities decision to accept the bid of respondent No.3 despite alleged omissions.
Whether the writ petition is devoid of merit given the legibility and financial viability of the accepted technical and financial bid.
Whether judicial review powers can be invoked to decide commercial contractual disputes regarding tender authenticity.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdeep Singh
Food Corporation of India
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Ayay Kumar Mittal
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
