M/S. GALAXY TRANSPORT AGENCIES, CONTRACTORS, TRADERS, TRANSPORTS AND SUPPLIERS versus M/S. NEW J.K. ROADWAYS, FLEET OWNERS AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS & ORS.

Summary

The Court restored a transport contract after holding that the Division Bench improperly substituted its interpretation of tender eligibility and its appraisal of experience for those of the tendering authority and expert committee. The authority reasonably understood the requirement of vehicles of both HMV/LMV types as requiring both kinds. Absent the recognised grounds for judicial review, the expert assessment of qualifying experience could not be displaced by a fresh judicial evaluation.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court could substitute its interpretation of vehicle requirements and assessment of work experience for the tendering authority’s evaluation.
2. Whether licence and identity-of-firm objections could be raised in the Supreme Court after being abandoned or not argued below.

Provisions considered

• Article 226, Constitution of IndiaTender review concerns legality of the decision-making process and the recognised grounds of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or perversity; it does not permit routine substitution of judicial technical assessment. (¶ 14–20)

Held

• The author of the tender is best placed to understand its requirements. Its interpretation must receive deference unless affected by mala fides, perversity or other recognised review grounds. Reading the words both HMV/LMV as requiring both types was not perverse, and the Division Bench erred in treating the rival bidder as eligible through a different reading of the slash. (¶ 12–17)
• The four-member Tender Opening Committee found the successful bidder met the five-year experience condition. The Division Bench improperly replaced that expert appraisal with its own assessment that only one year was established; the Court did not undertake a fresh assessment of the documents. (¶ 18–20)
• The licence objection appeared to have been given up before the Division Bench and was not revived by enlarging this appeal. The objection concerning experience certificates in another firm name had not been argued before either Bench below and was also rejected. (¶ 21–22)

Result

Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge judgment dismissing the challenge to the contract restored. Appeal disposed of accordingly.