Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: single tender in Kk Alliance Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India on 5 May, 2018Matching Fragments
This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned letter, bearing No.18-19/00521/MM 22 (01) dated 05.05.2018, and to quash the same pertaining to tender, bearing No.ENG/17-18/003603/MM 22(01) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dated 23.12.2017, and consequently, to direct the fourth respondent to declare the petitioner as single successful bidder of the tender within a time.
e) M/s.Omega Enterprises vs. Ministry of Civil Aviation (Madras) (W.P.No.17825 of 2018), wherein, this Court held has under:
“18. I failed to understand as to how the above decision would help the petitioner in any manner, when it is not the proven case of the petitioner that cancellation of the tender would result in far greater loss of exchequer. In other words, this Court cannot presume that the amount quoted by the petitioner alone will be the highest at any point of time, even when fresh tender is called for. In this case, admittedly, the tender process has resulted in considering a single tender of the petitioner alone. Therefore, it cannot be said that by not considering the petitioner's tender and awarding the contract based on the price quoting by them, the respondents have faced far greater loss of exchequer, in the absence of any competency in the price bidding.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. Therefore, the prime reason for taking a decision by the 4 th respondent in cancelling and issuing fresh tender (tender No.3) is that since the global tender floated by the 4th respondent turned into a single tender since no sufficient tenderers have submitted the bids while there are enough manufacturers are available globally for the subject equipment for which, the tender (2nd tender) has been floated. Further, pursuant to the tender, only three bids were quoted, of which, two bids were disqualified and the remaining bidder, i.e. the petitioner herein was available, in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the 4th respondent to compare the price and other aspects of the tender in the absence of competitive biddings for conducting reverse action in terms of the tender conditions. Therefore, in such circumstances, the 4th respondent was constrained to cancel the earlier tender and resorted to rebidding. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity with the decision of the 4th respondent in cancelling the tender (2nd tender) in order to interfere with the same by this Court while exercising its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, in order to promote full transparency, healthy competition and award of works at the most reasonable price, it is generally desirable to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis invite many tenderers by the tendering authority instead of resorting to finalize the single bid.
19. However, in this regard, the learned Senior counsel would point out that there were totally three bids were knocked pursuant to the tender notification and even though two other bids were disqualified, but the same bids can be considered as competitive biddings for the purpose of comparison of price and quality with that of the bid of the petitioner and thereby, it cannot be turned into single tender enquiry so as to reject the same. This Court does not find any considerable force in the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the other two bids were found disqualified and there would be no occasion for the tendering authority/4th respondent to open and consider the same for the purpose of comparison of the same with that of the bid of the petitioner. Generally, disqualified tenders will be rejected at the threshold and they cannot be considered for any purpose muchless comparison of price and quality with that of the other bids and it is not proper for the tendering authority to compare the disqualified bids with that of the other bids for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis purpose of finding the same as qualified. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior counsel in this regard, cannot be accepted.