Summary
NVS rejected a tablet-supply bid because past smartphone supplies did not satisfy its experience requirement for the same or similar category of products. The Court held that this interpretation was reasonably supported by product classifications and the procurement’s purpose. The High Court could not substitute its own technical comparison or apply contra proferentem to favour the bidder. Both appeals were allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether NVS’s exclusion of smartphone supplies from the past-performance requirement justified judicial interference.
- Whether contra proferentem required construing eligibility conditions in favour of the challenging bidder.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaReview did not permit replacing a reasonable technical interpretation of tender eligibility with the Court’s preferred interpretation. (¶ 16-24)
Held
- The tender author is best placed to understand its requirements. Judicial disagreement with its interpretation does not itself justify intervention; review remains available for illegality, irrationality, mala fides, perversity or procedural impropriety. Courts cannot undertake their own technical evaluation in place of the designated authority. (¶¶ 16-20, 23-24)
- The different classifications of tablets and smartphones on the procurement portal and by customs authorities supported the reasonableness of NVS’s interpretation. Similar functions, or another institution’s procurement of both products together, did not compel their treatment as similar categories for this tender. The Court did not need to resolve every technical specification. (¶ 21.1-22.4)
- The insurance-related contra proferentem rule could not require accepting a particular bidder’s preferred interpretation of tender eligibility. The authorities concerning implied contractual terms and uncertain accounting benchmarks did not justify the High Court’s intervention on these facts. (¶¶ 19, 24.1-24.2)
- Subsequent elaboration of the rejection reasons did not constitute inconsistency or a post-facto alteration of eligibility. A later supply contract could not establish compliance with the prescribed performance period. The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the writ petition dismissed without costs. (¶ 25-29)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.