Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Learned Single Judge also notices the submission made on behalf of BSNL that KEC is quite unreasonably dubbing the action of BSNL arbitrary inspite of the fact that it was not disqualified for not adhering to the tender specifications, by not giving list or cost of spares in the AMC. The judgment also notices that BSNL seeks to make a distinction between an Addendum and an amendment and that since clarification of 6.9.2008 was an Addendum and not an amendment, it could not obliterate what was provided for in the Addendum issued on the previous date. It was further suggested by the learned senior counsel for ACME that the amendment, SOR was to the Addendum of 5.9.2008. Clause 4.7.2 of the DTR in Section IV of the tender papers was retained notwithstanding the document of 5.9.2008 and 6.9.2008 respectively. Since, the bid of ACME had adhered to the requirement of clause 4.7.2, it was accepted by BSNL. The decision of BSNL could not be labeled as arbitrary. It is reiterated by ACME that there is no ultimate public interest involved in the challenge launched by KEC. It was reiterated that it is only an attempt by KEC to further its cause for obtaining a larger chunk of the work. Since ACME was already in negotiation with BSNL, it was submitted that it would not be appropriate for the court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which would result in inevitable delay in the implementation of a Project of great public importance.

On such assessment of the purport of addendum 4.2, the process of evaluation adopted by BSNL is found to be inappropriate. There may not have been any mischief about the way that BSNL approached the evaluation but the very fact that there was a gap in what it says was intended to be communicated and what was, in fact, communicated would result in the decision-making process being rendered arbitrary from the petitioner company's - or any reasonable bidder's - perspective even if there may not have been any obvious mala fides on BSNL's part. The arbitrariness is in BSNL failing to see the point despite its attention being drawn to the interpretation of addendum 4.2 and its cursory response thereto. The unfairness is in BSNL refusing to read addendum 4.2 from the reasonable reader's, or rational bidder's, perspective. The unreasonableness is in BSNL failing to appreciate that all the strict adherence clauses in its tender documents applied with all stringency to the "revised consolidated SOR." The irrationality is in BSNL's carelessness to ensure that what it says it intended to convey was, in fact, conveyed by addendum 4.2; a simple indication of the option or the alternative figures being indicated in parentheses in the relevant columns would have sufficed. After all, it was a project of value in excess of Rs 8000 crore which required sophisticated equipment to be supplied and a complicated system to be set up, ironically, to enable better communication.

We have quoted in extenso the exact meaning of Wednesbury principle to clearly demonstrate the point that the evaluation process or decision of BSNL is not so outrageous in its defiance of logic as to fall within the Wednesbury Principle. We are of the opinion that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to interfere in huge government projects unless the decision making process is indubitably vitiated by such irrationality, that no authority properly directing itself on law, the facts and other relevant factors could have reached such a conclusion. We may notice here that the Learned Single Judge has accepted that BSNL enjoyed a certain amount of discretion to ignore minor aberrations in the bids. Learned Single Judge also notices the suggestion made by BSNL that it being a huge project relating to development of telecommunications in the north eastern region of India certain knee-joint movement was permissible to BSNL. The Learned Single Judge itself came to the conclusion that it is possible that BSNL understood addendum 4.2 to be as it suggests, but then proceeds to hold that it is 'of no importance'. We are unable to agree with the opinion of the Learned Single Judge that the view of BSNL was of "no importance". The settled position of law is that if two views are possible on the construction of a particular clause or a document, the view expressed by the author of the document ought to be accepted. We are also unable to agree with the interpretation that the tender document would have to be construed in the manner suggested or was understood by the bidder. Such an interpretation may well lead to complications in case more than two bidders are in conflict with each other. Even in the present proceedings the views and interpretations of both KEC and ACME in conflict with each other. Since the authority BSNL has accepted the view of one of the biddings, even the test laid down by the Learned Single Judge would be satisfied. That apart, in case there are a number of bidders it is possible that each bidder would offer its own interpretation to suit its convenience. This would lead to chaos and pandemonium rather than certainty and harmony. Undoubtedly, the tender issuing authority is expected to know the message that is to be conveyed to the intending bidders. It cannot, however, be held responsible for any faulty understanding of any of the clauses by the bidder. In such circumstances, the interpretation suggested by the tender issuing authority would have to be taken into consideration as much as the interpretation suggested by the intending bidder, if not more so, it cannot be an "either" "or" situation in favour of the authority or the bidder. In any event the tender document is to be construed on the basis of the well-known principles applicable to the construction of documents. Normal rule is to construe the document by giving the words their natural and normal meaning. Text and context of the document are of primary importance in discovering the intention of the legislator or the author of the document. The words used in the clause, when clear, are the best guide to the intent of the author.

On the basis of the above we are unable to find any irrationality or carelessness in the procedure adopted by BSNL to ensure that KEC did not fail to understand the correct meaning of the document. Once the Learned Single Judge had accepted that there may not have been any mischief about the way that BSNL approached the evaluation, it could not have been nullified on the ground of partial or faulty communication. We may notice at this stage that all the parties had agreed that there was no allegation of mala fide against BSNL. Rather it is a matter of record that BSNL had earlier exercised the discretion in favour of KEC when it was not disqualified even though its bid had not been found to be responsive to the tender document. We may also take note of the fact that the competitors herein are not some sort of novices in the field of telecommunication. Their huge organizations undoubtedly, have access to vest reservoirs of high quality legal acumen. In other words, we are inclined to take the view that all the contending bidders would have been guided by experts in the field. We are, therefore, unable to countenance the suggestion of confusion in communication as advocated by KEC. The document had to be construed in accordance with the well-recognised rules concerning construction of documents. The view expressed by the bidders cannot be held to be a paramount consideration in construing the various provisions of the tender documents. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion of the Learned Single Judge that the decision making process of the appellant was faulty or so arbitrary as to bring it within principle of Wednesbury Principle.