Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioner's grievance with the first respondent's decision to issue the LOI dated 30.08.2025 to the third respondent is premised on the ground that the second respondent's bid is treated as responsive only to justify a Reverse Auction; and to support this ground it is canvassed that [i] the Tender Accepting Authority could have selected a vendor in the Reverse Auction only if there are three and more responsive bids, [ii] there could not have been Reverse Auction because only the petitioner and the third respondent have submitted responsive bids, [iii] the first respondent has initiated Reverse Auction just a day after the financial bids are opened when the stipulation under the KTPP Rules is that Reverse Auction must begin on the third day excluding the date on which the financial bids are opened3.

4.4 The first respondent has resorted to Reverse Auction as contemplated under Rule 25A of the KTPP Rules, but in violation of the procedure that is contemplated for selection of a vendor through Reverse Auction. This rule stipulates that [a] the Reverse Auction method could be adopted when there are three or more qualified bidders, [b] the Tender Accepting Authority must constitute a committee comprising officers as deemed fit to supervise the conduct and processing of electronic Reverse Auction, and [c] the process of Reverse Auction should be started at 10 a.m. on the third working day excluding the day on which the financial bids are opened.

16.1 The Rule 25A[2] of the KTPP Rules stipulates that after the Tender Accepting Authority selects the procurement by Electronic Reverse Auction [Reverse Auction], the Tender Inviting Authority shall invite the tender notifying that the tender is subject to Reverse Auction with the further stipulation that the tender notifying invitation shall include the details relating to the access and registration for the Reverse Auction and process for the conduct of such auction. The Rule 25A[3] of the KTPP Rules details the procedure to be adopted for the conduct and processing of Reverse Auction. It firstly stipulates that after the submission of tenders, the tenders shall be opened by following procedure prescribed but the identity of the tenderers shall not be disclosed, and secondly, that the Tender Accepting Authority may constitute a committee comprising such officers as it deems fit to supervise the conduct and processing of Reverse Auction9.

16.2 The crucial expression here is 'may', and the Rule making authority has not used the expression 'shall'. There is nothing to indicate that it is mandatory for the Tender Accepting Authority, when Reverse Auction method is selected, to constitute a Committee to supervise the Reverse Auction. Significantly in the present case, the first respondent is categorical that it has duly constituted a competent Committee for the said purpose; that the Reverse Auction was held on 29.08.2025 under the supervision of this Committee, which monitored the process as per the prescribed norms to ensure fairness, transparency and procedural integrity. If the sub rule says that the Tender Accepting Authority may constitute a Committee 9 Rule 25A[3][ii] - tender Accepting Authority may constitute a Committee consisting of such officers as it deems fit to supervise the conduct and processing of Electronic Reverse Auction. and if the first respondent has indeed ensured such a Committee is constituted and overseen the Reverse Auction, this Court must opine that there is no reason for interference even on this ground.