Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dayal Chauhan vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 October, 2020
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2336/2020 Reserved on: 28.9.2020 Decided on :01.10.2020 .
Dayal Chauhan .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. .....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. B. C. Negi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocated, Ms. Seema Sharma, Bhupinder Thakur, and Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocates General for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Mr. G.S. Rathour, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
(Through Video Conferencing) _____________________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 2
(i) that writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to open .
the technical bid and subsequent action should follow.
(ii) that writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to declare respondent No.5 as ineligible.
2 The respondentsDepartment invited bids through notice inviting tender from intending bidders in respect of work of upgradation & M/T of road from Pabor to Lana Basali KM 8/0 to 29/685. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 1376.30 lacs. The last date of online bid was 7.3.2020 upto 10.30 hrs. The part I technical bid was scheduled to be opened on 7.3.2020 at 11.30 hrs. In response to the notice only two bids were received. The petitioner and respondent No.5 were the only bidders.
3 The technical bid at the first instance was evaluated/scrutinized by the evaluation committee at division level. The evaluation committee at division level declared bid of petitioner as responsive. The bid of respondent No.5 was also scrutinized and after scrutiny of bid part II of respondent No.5, the petitioner made a submission that bid of respondent No.5 should not be declared as responsive as his bid security in the ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 3 form of FDR was not pledged in the name of Executive Engineer, .
HPPWD Division Sangrah.
4 Upon this, a request was made by the official respondents to Branch Manager, PNB Totu, Shimla for verification of the fact as to whether the FDR submitted by respondent No.5 was pledged in the name of Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Totu Shimla replied r to Sangrah or not. In response thereot, the Branch Manager, PNB through email dated 11.3.2020 and confirmed that the FDR was pledged in the name of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah.
5 The Superintending Engineer, 12th Circle, HPPWD Nahan also made a request to Branch Manager, PNB Totu, Shimla on 12.3.2020 and requested to intimate the date of pledging of FDR. Thereafter, a request was made by Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah to Chief Manager, Circle Office, PNB Shimla, vide letter dated 13.05.2020 requesting that the date of pledging FDR of respondent No.5 and amount of FDR may be intimated.
6 The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah again submitted letter dated 1.6.2020 to Zonal Manager,PNB Shimla making similar request. In response to this letter, the Chief ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 4 Manager, Circle Office, Shimla sent reply vide letter dated 5.6.2020 .
stating therein that Atul Sharma i.e. respondent No.5 has maintained FD account in their bank, which is on auto renewal mode.
7 As per this letter, the FDR was last renewed on 5.6.2019 for an amount of Rs.28,30, 336/ for further 12 months.
It was stated in the letter that at the request of Atul Sharma FD account was pledged in the name of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Sangrah on 5.12.2019.
8 According to the respondents, the letter further revealed that Sh. Atul Sharma respondent No.5 visited the branch with original FD receipt and requested to issue fresh receipt of FD which was printed and issued accordingly after taking over previous receipt.
9 The competent authority observed that the bidder cannot be disqualified merely on this technical ground, which otherwise stands complied with and further that it would ensure better competition.
10 Consequently, respondent No.2/competent authority directed the field office to declare the bid of respondent No.5 also as responsive and open the financial bid of both bidders and ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 5 accordingly, financial bid of both the bidders were opened on .
6.7.2020,as per which respondent No.5 was found to be lowest bidder.
11 It is in this background, Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, representing the petitioner would argue that the action of the officials respondents in not rejecting and disqualifying respondent No.5 technical/financial bid, who on the cut off date as per clauses 16.2 r in and 16.3 of the tender documents was not eligible; and awarding tender in favour of respondent No.5 is a clear act of favouritism, especially when the respondents on an earlier occasion had rejected claim of the petitioner for awarding another tender only on this ground.
12 On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Vinod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, would argue that the decision taken by the official respondents was in larger public interest and to ensure better competition among the bidders, therefore, needs to be upheld.
13 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.
::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 614 The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its .
corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Shetty vs. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 SCC 488, Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568, Assistant Collector, Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260=1984 (2) SCALE 819, Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651= 1995 (1) Arb. LR 193, Ramniklal N.Bhutta vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 1 SCC 134= 1996 (8) SCALE 417 and Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492=1999 (1) Arb. LR 431 (SC).
15 The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision consideration which are of paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 7 for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a .
relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness.
16 The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene.
17 It is well settled that the Court should not ordinarily interfere in commercial activities under its power of judicial review ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 8 and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a fairly .
recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and another etc. etc. (2019) 11 Scale 592, wherein it was observed as under:
"6. Aggrieved, the original writ petitioner is before us in these petitions. This Court in a catena of judgments has laid down the principles with regard to judicial review in contractual matters. It is settled law that the writ courts should not easily interfere in commercial activities just because public sector undertakings or government agencies are involved.
7. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, it was held that judicial review of government contracts was permissible in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. The principles enunciated in this case are :
"94. .......
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 9
Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process .
of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasiadministrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
8. In Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492, this Court held that superior courts should not interfere in matters of tenders unless substantial public interest was involved or the transaction was mala fide.
9. In Air India Limited vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd.(2000) 2 SCC 617, this Court once again stressed the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in contracts involving the State and its instrumentalities. It was held that Courts must proceed with great caution while exercising their discretionary powers and should exercise these powers only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on making out a legal point.
10. In Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. vs. Cavalet India Ltd.(2005) 4 SCC 456, it was held that while effective steps must be ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 10 taken to realise the maximum amount, the High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution .
is not competent to decide the correctness of the sale affected by the Corporation.
11. In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.(2005) 6 SCC 138, it was held that while exercising power of judicial review in respect of contracts, the Court should concern itself primarily with the question, whether there has been any infirmity in the decision making process. By way of judicial review, Court cannot examine details of terms of contract which have been entered into by public bodies or State.
12. In B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548, it was held that it is not always necessary that a contract be awarded to the lowest tenderer and it must be kept in mind that the employer is the best judge therefor; the same ordinarily being within its domain. Therefore, the court's interference in such matters should be minimal. The High Court's jurisdiction in such matters being limited, the Court should normally exercise judicial restraint unless illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the employer is apparent on the face of the record.
13. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, it was held:
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 11 review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be .
borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold........"
14. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 216, it was held that if State or its instrumentalities acted reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, interference by Court would be very restrictive since no person could claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. Therefore, the Courts would not normally interfere in policy decisions and in matters challenging award of contract by State or public authorities.
15. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818, it was held that a mere disagreement with the decisionmaking process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 12 for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, .
irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. The owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
16. In Montecarlo vs. NTPC Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 4946, it was held that where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints.
17. In Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Another vs. BVG India Ltd. and Others (2018) 5 SCC 462 , it was held that the authority concerned is in the best position ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 13 to find out the best person or the best quotation depending on the work to be entrusted under the .
contract. The Court cannot compel the authority to choose such undeserving person/company to carry out the work. Poor quality of work or goods can lead to tremendous public hardship and substantial financial outlay either in correcting mistakes or in rectifying defects or even at times in redoing the entire work.
18. Most recently this Court in Caretel Infotech Limited vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others (2019) 6 Scale 70 observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable only in view of government and public sector enterprises venturing into economic activities. This Court observed that there are various checks and balances to ensure fairness in procedure. It was observed that the window has been opened too wide as every small or big tender is challenged as a matter of routine which results in government and public sectors suffering when unnecessary, close scrutiny of minute details is done.
19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clearcut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 14 made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry.
.
The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.
20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 15 court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the .
best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case."
18 Similar reiteration of law can be found in another recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s N. Ramachandra Reddy vs. State of Telangana and others, AIR 2019 SC 4182.
19 Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, we may notice that the deadline for receiving bids online, as stipulated in the tender document, was 7.3.2020 upto 10.30 hours. It was also provided that "No physical documents will be accepted after the closing date and time of submission of bids, either by registered post or by hand, failing which the bids shall be declared non responsive." This condition was reiterated vide clauses No.5 and 6 of Section 1 of the tender document.
::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 1620 Clause 16 relates to bid security, of which subclauses .
16.1, 16.2 and 16.3, as relevant for the purpose, are extracted hereinbelow: "16.1 The Bidder shall furnish, as part of of the Bid, Bid Security, in the amount specified in the Bid Data Sheet. This bid security shall be in favour of the authority mentioned in the Bid Data Sheet and shall be valid for 45 days beyond the validity of the bid.
16.2 At the bidder's option, the bid security shall be in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) or Demand Draft (DD) of a scheduled commercial bank, issued in favour of the name given in the Bid Data Sheet. The Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be valid for at least six months after the deadline date of receipt of birds. Any other forms of Bid Security acceptable to the Employer are stated in the Bid Data Sheet.
16.3 Any bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security and not secured as indicated in subclause 16.1 and 16.2, shall be rejected by the Employer as non responsive."
21 It is evidently clear from the aforesaid conditions that the last date/time for receipt of bids through etendering was 7.3.2020 upto 10.30 hours and, thereafter, no physical document was to be accepted either by registered post or by hand and failure to submit the requisite documents would render the bid to be non responsive.
::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 1722 The tender bid document was required to be .
accompanied with bid security of Rs. 27.60 lacs in favour of Executive Engineer, HPPWD,Division Sangrah.
23 As per pleaded case of the respondents themselves, the bid of respondent No.5 was not accompanied with bid security in the form of FD placed in the name of Executive Engineer, HPPWD,Division Sangrah.
24 to
It is only thereafter that
r respondents undertook
exercise, as narrated above, and after obtaining fresh F.D. receipt not only permitted respondent No.5, but thereafter finding him to be the lowest bidder, proceeded to award the work in question.
25 In such circumstances, the moot question is whether it was open to the respondents to undertake this exercise on the ground of larger public interest.
26 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would argue that the principles of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of commercial transactions and once it was found that respondent No.5 has failed to fulfill the requirements of the tender, the only course open to the official respondents was to have declared his bid to be non responsive.
::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 1827 Strong reliance in this behalf is placed upon the .
judgment rendered by the ThreeJudge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and another vs. BVG India Limited and others, (2018) 5 SCC 462, more particularly para 27, which reads as under: "27. Thus, only when a decision making process is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority proceeding reasonably or lawfully could have arrived at such decisions, power of judicial review can be exercised.
However, if it is bona fide and in public interest, the Court will not interfere in the exercise of power of judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. The principles of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of commercial transactions. Wherever a decision has been taken appropriately in public interest, the Court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint. When a decision is taken by the concerned authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all tenderers on their own merits and it is ultimately found that the successful bidder had in fact substantially complied with the purpose and object for which the essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with."
28 He would further argue that it is settled principles of law that if the Government departs from standards, which are structured by rational, relevant and nondiscriminatory factors, unless it is shown that the departure is not arbitrary and based on ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 19 some valid principle, which in itself was not irrational, .
unreasonable or discriminatory, the action is liable to be struck down.
29 In support of such submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Sarita Devi vs. Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department and ors., ILR 2017(IV)) HP 741.
30r to Obviously, there can be no quarrel with the preposition, as laid down in the aforesaid two judgments, but then it is equally settled that evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial transactions/contracts. If the decision relating to award of contract is in public interest, the Court will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in awarding the contract is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest by ignoring public interest.
31 This was so stated by ThreeJudge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in BVG India Limited's case (supra), wherein it was observed as under: "45. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial transactions/contracts. If the decision relating to award of contract is in public interest, ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 20 the Courts will not, in exercise of the power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in .
awarding the contract is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest by ignoring public interest. Attempts by unsuccessful bidders with an artificial grievance and to get the purpose defeated by approaching the Court on some technical and procedural lapses, should be handled by Courts with firmness. The exercise of the power of judicial review should be avoided if there is no irrationality or arbitrariness. In the matter on hand, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness on the part of the expert body while in action. So also, we do not find any bias or mala fides either on the part of the corporation or on the part of the technical expert while taking the decision. Moreover, the decision is taken keeping in mind the public interest and the work experience of the successful bidder."
32 It is borne out from the records of the bank that were summoned for our perusal that FDR for an amount of Rs.28,30,336/ was lastly renewed on 5.6.2019 by the Punjab National Bank and the same stood placed in the name of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Sangrah on 5.12.2019. Therefore, in such circumstances, the mere fact that the FDR , as submitted by the petitioner, did not show that it was pledged in the name of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Sangrah, being contrary to ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 21 the record, would be of no consequence muchless result in adverse .
consequences to respondent No.5. The fault, if any, was on the part of the Bank, who despite the FDR being pledged, as aforesaid, did not reflect the same in the FDR and obviously, therefore, the respondent No.5 cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part.
33 Adverting to the other submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on earlier occasion his client's bid had been rejected only on this ground, it would only suffice to say that since complete record of that case was not before us, it would not be proper for this Court to embark upon such issue.
34 Nonetheless, as we have already observed in CWP No. 3583/2020, titled as M/s Chamunda Construction Company vs. State of H.P. and ors, decided on 28.9.2020, that the respondents cannot indulge in "you show me the face and I will show you the Rule", and they are duty bound to ensure that there is no discrimination and every bidder is treated equally by following the same standards, procedures and protocols.
35 This court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the difference of amount in the bid offered by respondent No.5 visa vis petitioner is colossal as the bid of the petitioner was for Rs.
13,59,09,976.62, whereas bid of respondent No.5 was for ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 22 Rs.12,15,19,956.93, and as such, bid of petitioner was higher by .
Rs. 1,43,90,020/ i.e. more than 10%.
36 We may clarify here that there has been no procedural aberration or error in awarding the contract as the official respondents were duty bound to have scrutinized the documents of both the bidders and if during the course of scrutiny of such documents, certain clarifications were required respondents, then they were well within their right for examining r by the the matter further and calling upon clarification, if any.
37 Once the State is in a position to save a huge amount of Rs.1,43,90,020/ in a single tender, obviously then such decision being in public interest needs to be upheld, especially when the award of contract is neither perverse, mala fide nor intended to favour anyone of the bidders.
38 Thus, keeping in view the larger public interest and taking into consideration the fact that award of contract is neither perverse, mala fide nor intended to benefit anyone of the bidders, we seen no reason to interfere with the impugned action of the official respondents.
39 In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP 23 pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own .
costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) 01.10.2020 Judge (pankaj) ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2020 20:20:03 :::HCHP