Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: decision making process in Page No.# 1/2 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 5 January, 2021Matching Fragments
6. Shri Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire process of tender for procurement of the Ambulances has been done through the GeM, before which the respondent no. 5 has declared itself to be an OEM. In view of such declaration, it was mandatory on the part of the respondent no. 5 to share its own credentials, including the ARAI certificate which admittedly was not done rendering the bid of respondent no. 5 defective and not liable for any consideration and consequently, the purchase order dated 27.10.2020 is liable to be interfered with. It is further submitted that the particular Ambulance in question, namely, Type C Ambulance-R falls under CMS Quadrant 1 as per GeM policy. The offer has to be made only from GeM validated OEMs. Since, the respondent no. 5 had registered themselves before the GeM as OEM, it was incumbent upon the respondent no. 5 to share its own credentials of OEM before the procuring authority which was admittedly not done. In fact, the very participation of the respondent no. 5 in the tender process has been argued to be in violation of the GeM policy in absence of their own credentials as OEM. It has been submitted that in spite of the various correspondences and also in view of the admitted fact of submission of the credentials of another company so far as the ARAI certificate is concerned, failure to take steps by the concerned authority is not only unreasonable but would also be against the interest of public service. Shri Roy accordingly submits that it is a fit case for intervention by this Court as the decision making process itself suffers from infirmity which, according to the petitioner, is glaring.
26. In the case of Central Coal Fields Ltd. ( supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the subject of various requirements for a Bidder, the aspect of curable or incurable defects. After discussing the case laws operating on the field, the following has been laid down:
"47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision "that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached" as held in Jagdish Mandal followed in Michigan Rubber.
27. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. ( supra), the scope of judicial review in Government contracts have been reiterated. For ready reference, paragraphs 13 and 15 are quoted hereinbelow:
"13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason 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.
39. The aspect of overwhelming public interest has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., reported in (2019) 14 SCC 81 in the following manner:
"37. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr.3 , this Court has expounded further on this aspect, while observing that the decision making process in accepting or rejecting the bid should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is arbitrary or irrational to an extent that no responsible authority, acting reasonably and in accordance with law, could have reached such a decision. It has been cautioned that Constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute their view for that of the administrative authority. Mere disagreement with the decision making process would not suffice."