Summary
The Court restored dismissal of a challenge to a road contract awarded to the lowest bidder. When the rival bidder disputed whether the successful bidder’s hot-mix plant was within the required 100 kilometres, the Chief Engineer obtained an independent verification showing compliance. With no prescribed complaint-verification procedure, this was a fair inquiry rather than a relaxation of an essential tender condition. The Division Bench had wrongly rejected the report because its author was an engineer from another circle.
Issues
- Whether the tendering authority could seek independent distance verification from an engineer outside the local circle to resolve a bidder’s complaint.
- Whether the High Court could overturn the award on that ground despite absence of a prescribed verification procedure or specific mala fides.
Held
- Ownership of a qualifying hot-mix plant within 100 kilometres was an essential condition. The tender allowed complaints against technical evaluation but prescribed no particular verification procedure. The independent engineer’s measurement of 98.1 kilometres supported compliance. (¶¶ 29, 32–34)
- Obtaining an independent report to resolve discrepant measurements was fair and within the Chief Engineer’s authority. This was not a matter of strict territorial jurisdiction; neither a relaxation nor a violation of an essential tender condition was established. (¶¶ 33–34, 39–42)
- Judicial review of tenders concerns the decision-making process and does not permit an appellate reassessment of tender evaluation. On these facts the procedure was fair, just and reasonable, with no specific mala fides warranting interference. (¶ 35–39)
- The Division Bench’s order was set aside and the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition was confirmed. (¶ 43–44)
Result
Appeal allowed. Division Bench order dated 13 March 2019 set aside; Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition restored, sustaining the tender award. No order as to costs.