2016 (10) TMI 1376 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to quash the Technical Bid Evaluation Summary under Annexure-4 and the consequential Financial Bid Opening Summary under Annexure-5 - direction for fresh evaluation of the Bid taking into account the materials - reason for rejection of the tender of the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner before the financial bids were opened or not - time to produce the renewed licence should have been granted to the petitioner before rejecting his tender or not. While rejecting the bid of the petitioner it has to be seen whether any reason has been assigned by the authority or not? - HELD THAT - Reason means the faculty of rational thought rather than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions to size up facts for what they are and what they imply and to identify the best means to some end and in general to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe. The importance of giving reason it reveals a rational nexus between facts considered and conclusions reached. In UNION OF INDIA VERSUS. MOHAN LAL CAPOOR OTHERS 1973 (9) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT and in UMA CHARAN VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. 1981 (8) TMI 235 - SUPREME COURT the apex Court held reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. The fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons when an order affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact whether it is judicial quasi-judicial or administrative. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record and it is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. Considering the meaning of reasons and its essentiality in passing the orders and applying the same to the present context it reveals from the additional affidavit filed by the State-opposite parties 1 and 2 that the documents giving reasons have been attached as Annexure-A to the said affidavit. With the writ petition the petitioner has filed only the first page of the summary uploaded on the website in which it was merely stated that the tender of the petitioner has been rejected on technical grounds - On perusal of the summary along with the minutes it is clear that the same was signed by the authorized personnel at 6.14 P.M. on 15.05.2015 and both the documents were uploaded on the same date at 6.15 P.M. which is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reason for rejecting the tender documents of the petitioner was given does not have merit as clear reason that the petitioner had not furnished valid registration certificate as an A Class Contractor has been assigned in the minutes uploaded on the website. Time ought to have been given to the petitioner to furnish the renewed certificate of registration - HELD THAT - Unless such time was required to be given in the terms and conditions of the Tender Documents the opp. parties could not have given such opportunity to the petitioner. All the documents were required to be filed along with the tender papers and in case had any extra time been given to the petitioner for furnishing the renewed licence the same would have amounted to deviation of the terms of the tender conditions. As such the opp. parties cannot be said to have faulted in not giving time to the petitioner to furnish such certificate. The reasons for rejection of the tender of the petitioner had duly been communicated and there was no necessity for giving any time to the petitioner to produce the document which was lacking i.e. the registration certificate in the present case - there are no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority so as to call for interference with the order impugned in Annexures-4 and 5 - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Technical Bid Evaluation Summary and Financial Bid Opening Summary in a tender process.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Class-A registered Public Works Department Contractor, sought to quash the Technical Bid Evaluation Summary and the Financial Bid Opening Summary for a tender issued by the Superintending Engineer. The petitioner requested a fresh evaluation considering the materials submitted. The petitioner's bid was rejected in the technical bid evaluation, and the financial bid was scheduled without considering the petitioner's bid.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection was based on the absence of a renewed license, which was not communicated to the petitioner before the financial bids were opened. The State's counsel contended that the petitioner's bid was defective due to the missing license, and the reason for rejection was uploaded on the website. The petitioner's approach to the court was questioned for not downloading the reason.

3. The court considered two main questions: whether the rejection reason was communicated to the petitioner before opening financial bids and whether the petitioner should have been given time to produce the renewed license. The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons in decisions affecting individuals' rights, citing legal precedents.

4. The court analyzed the concept of "reasons" in decision-making, emphasizing the need for a rational nexus between facts and conclusions. It was noted that the reason for rejection, relating to the absence of a valid registration certificate, was clearly stated in the uploaded minutes.

5. The court held that unless the tender conditions required giving time to submit the renewed license, the authorities were not obligated to grant such an opportunity. The petitioner's delay in submitting the renewed license further weakened the argument for granting additional time.

6. Ultimately, the court found no illegality or irregularity in the authority's actions, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The court concluded that the rejection reasons were communicated, and there was no basis for interference with the impugned order. No costs were awarded in the matter.