Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER :-

5. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner in the two writ petitions and the Review Petition No.454/2025 arising in W.P.(C) No.4054/2025 seeking review of judgement dated 13.08.2025. At the outset, Mr. Tripathi, on instructions, fairly submitted that so far as the challenge in Review Petition No.454/2025 is concerned, the same is not being pressed.

9. The contention of Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel was that according to clause 1.2.6 of the RFP, the bids were to be evaluated on the basis of lowest bid project cost which was further clarified that the same shall constitute the sole criteria for such evaluation. The said intention was also reiterated by defining the term "lowest bidder" to mean the bidder whose bid project cost is the lowest. He submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner was the only lowest bidder having quoted its bid at Rs.880 Crores. He contended that, in terms of clause 1.2.6, the petitioner ought to have been declared as L1 bidder.

14. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel stoutly contended that the actions taken by tender issuing authorities like NHAI, while annulling or cancelling the tender process, cannot be arbitrary or capricious and definitely not shrouded in mystery. He strongly asserted that fairness and transparency in actions by public bodies, specially in tender matters, is no more res integra. He contended that annulment of a tender process midway is an exception and not a norm and cannot be initiated by a public authority sans reasons. In order to substantiate this he relied on the following judgements:-

REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

21. In rejoinder, Mr. Parag Tripathi learned senior counsel reiterated and reaffirmed the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner apart from trying to distinguish the applicability of the judgments in IGM Corporation (supra) and Suresh Mathew (supra). In particular, Mr. Tripathi invited attention to page 405 of the writ petition to submit that the Executive Committee of NHAI on a previous occasion in the case of M/s. KMC- Longijan (JV), which had erroneously quoted a bid price of Rs.1539/- against an estimated bid price of Rs.1848 Crores and yet after declaring such bid as abnormally low and unacceptable, decided not to annul the whole bidding process and to select the lowest bid amongst other responsive bidders for award of work subject to approval of the Competent Authority. In other words, learned senior counsel contends that even after an identical situation had arisen in the present case, there was no valid justification or reason as to why a similar decision to continue with the previous bidding process by choosing the lowest bidder as L1 could not have been undertaken.