Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and Certiorari, directing the Respondents to provide true copies of all the documents forming the basis on which the Petitioner was eliminated/ disqualified from participating in the reverse auction in tender bearing notice No. TS225033 floated by the Respondents; to quash and set aside the decision of the Respondents disqualifying the Petitioner from participating in the reverse auction in the said tender and, direct the Respondents to conduct the reverse auction afresh. It has also been prayed that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to issue a purchase order under tender notice No.TS225033.

(ii), all MSEs found qualified for Bulk/ Development Orders/ Awards of Contract who could not be selected for reverse auction, but are within the range of 15 % of lowest initial price offer of the bidder qualified for the bulk order, shall be permitted to participate in the reverse auction, irrespective of their inter-se ranking based on initial price offer.

13. It is submitted that the Petitioner firm was within the range of 15 % of lowest initial price offer of the bidder qualified for bulk order and the same is evident from the document of its commercial bid. Thus, eliminating the Neutral Citation Number is 2023:DHC:2463-DB Petitioner firm from reverse auction is arbitrary. It is submitted that in the year 2019, on the basis of the same certificate, the Petitioner was allowed to participate in a reverse auction for the same product was declared L-1 subsequent to the reverse auction. It is submitted that as the Respondents have themselves awarded the Petitioner works of a similar nature and declared it L-1 in a prior tender on the basis of submission of the same documents, thus, disqualifying the Petitioner from even participating in the reverse auction in the Tender in dispute herein, is in complete violation of the Petitioner‟s fundamental rights.

18. It has been submitted by the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner herein does not fulfil the criteria as laid down in the notification of the Government as it does not have the necessary certificates and thus it was not Neutral Citation Number is 2023:DHC:2463-DB eligible to participate in the reverse auction as an MSME. It is submitted that as far as the Petitioner‟s contention that it is eligible to participate in the reverse auction on the basis of the provisions of the Tender document are concerned, it is the stand of the Respondents that if the quoted rate is competitive and falls within the range of consideration incorporated in the algorithm of the reverse auction, i.e., if the quoted rate falls within range of rates quoted by lowest 50 % bidders, the Petitioner could have qualified to participate in the reverse auction irrespective of whether it was an MSE or not.It is submitted that the Petitioner herein is however attempting to claim price benefit prescribed for MSEs, i.e., L-1 + 15% on the basis of a certificate which was scrutinised properly during the process of the Tender, and not found valid at the relevant point in time, in order to be eligible to qualify for the reverse auction.

23. The Respondent No. 2 was further correct in stating that if the rate quoted by the Petitioner was competitive and fell within the range of consideration incorporated in the algorithm of the reverse auction, i.e., if the quoted rate falls within range of rates quoted by lowest 50 % bidders, the Petitioner could have qualified to participate in the reverse auction, irrespective of whether it was an MSE or not. Since the Petitioner did not fall within the aforesaid parameters, the Petitioner was rightly not allowed to participate in the reverse auction.