Summary
The Supreme Court restored BCCL’s tender award after a reverse auction resumed following connectivity problems. The unsuccessful bidder established neither a public-law entitlement to the contract nor sufficient grounds for interference. Inquiry material supported bona fide conduct despite deficiencies in supervision, and the authority’s plausible interpretation of its tender deserved deference. A later lower offer could not secure a special negotiation opportunity at other bidders’ expense.
Issues
- Whether the bidder’s contractual grievance warranted Article 226 intervention.
- Whether auction resumption, extension or delayed guarantees established actionable arbitrariness.
- What deference was owed to the tendering authority’s interpretation.
Held
- Tender review concerns legality of the decision-making process rather than commercial soundness. An applicant must demonstrate a public-law grievance and public interest, rather than merely enforce a contractual expectation against a State entity. Lowest-bidder status does not confer entitlement to award; bidders are entitled to fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40)
- The bidder’s changing demands showed a private commercial objective. Accepting its later lower offer through litigation would confer a special opportunity denied to other participants. Public expenditure alone does not establish the necessary public interest; timely completion and technical factors also matter. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42)
- The inquiry material supported bona fide conduct, notwithstanding deficiencies in monitoring and incident management. The possibility of better administration was not itself a ground to invalidate the award, and the record did not establish fraud, illegal gratification or statutory violation. The Division Bench’s rejection of the technical difficulties was erroneous. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 46)
- Bona fide relaxation may be granted where tender conditions permit. A minor procedural departure alone did not justify setting aside this award, particularly given public costs and delay. The precise extension calculation was not decided because all bidders received the same clear communication and no relevant surprise was claimed. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49)
- The authoring authority was better placed to understand its requirements. Its plausible, non-absurd construction of the resumption and guarantee provisions deserved deference unless patently perverse or mala fide; a different judicial interpretation did not establish illegality. (¶¶ 51, 52, 53)
Result
BCCL, RK Transport and C1 India appeals allowed; AMR-Dev Prabha’s appeal dismissed. Division Bench judgment set aside and its writ petition dismissed. No costs.