Summary
The Court upheld rejection of two technical bids for an Indore flyover. UPSBC had withheld its indictment concerning a collapsed bridge, contrary to the tender documents read together. The authority’s construction of the similar-work requirement against Rachana was also permissible. The State was directed to issue the letter of intent to Rajkamal at UPSBC’s financial bid, which Rajkamal had agreed to match.
Issues
- Whether nondisclosure of a charge sheet and stayed trial concerning a collapsed bridge justified rejection despite a declaration referring to pending investigations.
- Whether the Court could substitute its interpretation of the tender’s requirement for at least one similar work.
Held
- Judicial review respects the tender author’s understanding of its requirements unless the interpretation or application is perverse or mala fide; the Court does not exercise appellate authority over commercial evaluation. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Although the format concerning pending investigations could be read literally, it had to be read with the separate certification concerning indictment. The charge sheet constituted indictment, and omission of that material fact concerning a collapsed bridge fell within the tender’s fraudulent-practice clause. There was no relevant ambiguity attracting contra proferentem. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The authority could reasonably understand at least one similar work as one bridge rather than aggregate two bridges under a single contract. Its interpretation was not perverse and could not be replaced by the Court’s own view; the additional span deficiency also supported rejection. (¶ 23)
- Rajkamal agreed to match UPSBC’s lower financial bid. The judgment directing an award to UPSBC was set aside, and the State was directed to issue the letter of intent to Rajkamal as soon as practicable at that matched price. (¶¶ 22, 24)
Result
Judgment in UPSBC’s favour set aside; Rachana’s challenge rejected and the judgments against it upheld. State directed to issue the letter of intent to Rajkamal at UPSBC’s financial bid; appeals disposed of accordingly.