Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(5) past experience of the tenderer and whether he has successfully completed similar work earlier;
(6) time which will be taken to deliver the goods or services; and often (7) the ability of the tenderer to take follow-up action, rectify defects or to give post-contract services.

24. In this context, we may also note three other conclusions arrived at in Tata Cellular. These conclusions suggest judicial restraint and non- interference by courts who should not substitute their view for that of the administrative authority. Consequently, if there is a plausible reason given by the administrative authority for calling off the tender exercise, the court should not sit in appeal over its decision, but give due deference to it. These conclusions are:

(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.

25. Keeping in mind the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, we are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Petitioner. While the price at which the contract is likely to be awarded is of some importance, it is equally important to be certain that the successful bidder can deliver the goods or services up to a minimum standard and quality. In the present case, the original equipment manufacturers themselves, each of whom is a reputed organization such as IBM, Oracle and Red Hat has stated that for the subscription renewal or technical support and updates and upgrades, they would be charging a total of about Rs. 81 lakhs. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that the Petitioner, who would be availing all these facilities given by the original equipment manufacturers, would be able to render the same services for only Rs. 20 lakhs. Clearly there is a serious disconnect between the price quoted by the original equipment manufacturers on the one hand and the price quoted by the Petitioner on the other. It appears rather facetious of the Petitioner to contend that it is taking a commercial risk for its business purposes. The Respondents are certainly not obliged to be the victim of a risk of the Petitioner requiring them, by its inability to render effective post- warranty services, or worse, by walking out of the contract, leaving them to fend for themselves and incur an obligation up to Rs. 1 crore. We were told that it is this that weighed in the mind of TCIL when it recommended scrapping of the tender and inviting fresh bids. This reason is good enough for us.

26. The Supreme Court has time and again cautioned judicial restraint in cases such as the present. We do not have any technical expertise in the matter and so must accord due respect to the views of Respondents, who have a reasonable (and legitimate) apprehension that the Petitioner may not be able to provide, if at all, the desirable level of adequate and effective post-warranty annual maintenance services. It is not appropriate for us to sit in appeal over the decision of the Respondents, nor can we substitute our views for those of the Respondents. (See Tata Cellular).