9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1390 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking the quashing of the allotment of the contract in favour of the Appellant - fulfilment of Condition No. 27 of the N.I.T. of holding work experience of at least 5 years or not - HELD THAT - In a series of judgments this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and thus its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. Insofar as Condition No. 27 of the N.I.T. prescribing work experience of at least 5 years of not less than the value of Rs. 2 crores is concerned suffice it to say that the expert body being the Tender Opening Committee consisting of four members clearly found that this eligibility condition had been satisfied by the Appellant before us. Without therefore going into the assessment of the documents that have been supplied to this Court it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged the expert evaluation of a particular tender particularly when it comes to technical evaluation is not to be second-guessed by a writ court. Also the argument that the Appellant has submitted work experience certificates in the name of Galaxy Agencies which is a separate entity from Galaxy Transport Agency has not been argued either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench. In this circumstance we reject this point also. The Division Bench s judgment dated 16.10.2020 is therefore set aside and the learned Single Judge s judgment dated 30.06.2020 is restored - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the service license of the Appellant. 2. Ownership of the required number of vehicles by the Appellant. 3. Compliance with the work experience requirement by the Appellant. 4. Interpretation of Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T. regarding vehicle types. 5. Judicial review of the tendering authority's decisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Service License: The first issue was whether the Appellant held a valid service license. The Single Judge found that although the Appellant's service license was valid only until 31.03.2020, it had sought an extension before its expiry. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, a General Order dated 30.03.2020 extended the validity of all transportation-related documents until 30.06.2020. Thus, the Appellant was deemed to fulfill the eligibility condition of holding a valid service license. 2. Ownership of Required Vehicles: The second issue concerned whether the Appellant owned the required number of vehicles. The Single Judge found that the Appellant owned 31 vehicles, satisfying the eligibility condition, despite a complaint that 5 vehicles belonged to others. The SSP's report confirmed the ownership of 31 vehicles by the Appellant, with one typographical error in a vehicle's registration number. 3. Compliance with Work Experience Requirement: The third issue was whether the Appellant met the work experience requirement of at least 5 years with a value not less than Rs. 2 crores. The Single Judge held that the Appellant submitted work experience certificates from 2014 to 2018. The tendering authority, being the best judge of such eligibility, considered this condition satisfied, mandating judicial hands-off. 4. Interpretation of Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T.: The Division Bench interpreted Condition No. 31, which required the ownership of at least 30 vehicles "both HMV/LMV." The Division Bench concluded that the term "HMV/LMV" meant that a tenderer could provide particulars of either HMVs or LMVs or both. The Division Bench found the rejection of JK Roadways' bid, which listed only HMVs, as irrational and arbitrary, and held that JK Roadways was wrongly disqualified. 5. Judicial Review of Tender Authority's Decisions: The Supreme Court emphasized that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand its requirements. Courts should defer to the authority's interpretation unless there is mala fide or perversity. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench overstepped by interpreting Condition No. 31 contrary to the tendering authority's understanding. The Tender Opening Committee's expert evaluation, which found the Appellant meeting the work experience requirement, was not to be second-guessed by the judiciary. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, restoring the Single Judge's decision. The Appellant was deemed to have satisfied all eligibility conditions, and the tender awarded to the Appellant was upheld. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
