2016 (9) TMI 1667 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of the writ petition and the application for clarification - declination to interfere with the decision taken by the Respondents to treat the bid submitted by the Appellants as non-compliant with the conditions of Invitation for Bids (IFB) - HELD THAT - The Appellant No. 1 had not filed an application for grant of registration. It was Appellant No. 2 who had filed it. Be that as it may, the decision dated 31.03.2015 was taken by the Registration Committee of CIB to approve the registration subject to the condition DAC granting permission for commercialization. That apart, the decision taken by the concerned authority, even if it is put on the website, despite the astute submission of Mr. Singh, would not tantamount to grant of registration certificate. The amendment was made, as we perceive, to clarify the position. The use of the word must adds a great degree of certainty to the same; it is a requisite parameter as thought of by the Respondent No. 1. The tender was floated for purchase which is needed for the nation. The first Respondent along with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were taking immense precaution. In such a circumstance, needless to emphasize, public interest is involved. It cannot succumb to private interest. The action on the part of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be regarded as arbitrary or unreasonable. By no stretch of imagination it can be construed to be an act which is not bonafide or to have been done to favour the fourth Respondent. Nothing has been pleaded that the fourth Respondent is not eligible or qualified. The essential condition of tender being not met with, the tenderer, the Appellants herein, were ineligible and the tender was non-responsive. That apart, the amendment was applicable to all. Additionally, the High Court in the first round of litigation had not held that the registration certificate granted on 31.03.2015 would enure to the benefit of the writ Petitioners from the date of the decision of the registration authority, and it had rightly not said so. There are no substance in the grounds raised in this appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Justifiability of the High Court's decision to treat the bid submitted by the Appellants as non-compliant.
2. Validity of the amendment to the Instructions to Bidders.
3. Whether the decision by the Registration Committee of CIB can be deemed as granting the registration certificate.
4. Compliance with the essential conditions of the tender process.
5. Allegations of arbitrariness and favoritism in the tender process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justifiability of the High Court's Decision:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellants, holding that the bid was non-compliant with the mandatory Clause 6.1(A)(d)6 (as amended by Amendment No. 3). The clause required the submission of the CIB registration certificate along with the bid or at the latest by the time of tender opening. The Appellants did not possess the registration certificate on the bid opening date (14.10.2015), as it was issued only on 21.12.2015. The High Court concluded that the Appellants did not satisfy the qualifying condition, making their bid non-responsive.

2. Validity of the Amendment to the Instructions to Bidders:
The amendment to Clause 6.1(A)(d)6 clarified that the registration certificate must be submitted along with the bid or by the time of tender opening. The Supreme Court noted that even without this amendment, the Respondents would have been justified in rejecting the bid for non-production of the registration certificate. The amendment did not introduce a new requirement but clarified the existing one, ensuring transparency and fairness in the tender process.

3. Decision by the Registration Committee of CIB:
The Registration Committee of CIB's decision to approve the provisional registration was subject to conditions, including permission for commercialization from the Department of Agriculture & Co-operation (DAC). The Supreme Court emphasized that a decision to grant registration is distinct from the actual issuance of the registration certificate. The decision alone did not fulfill the requirement of having a valid registration certificate at the time of bid submission.

4. Compliance with Essential Conditions of the Tender Process:
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering to essential conditions in the tender process. The requirement to submit the registration certificate was an essential condition, and non-compliance rendered the bid non-responsive. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing strict compliance with essential conditions and the limited scope for relaxation unless permitted by the tender conditions.

5. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Favoritism:
The Appellants alleged that the amendment to the Instructions to Bidders was intended to favor the fourth Respondent. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence of arbitrariness or favoritism. The amendment was applicable to all bidders and aimed at ensuring clarity and compliance with the tender requirements. The Court highlighted that public interest takes precedence over private interest in the tender process, and the actions of the Respondents were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The Appellants' bid was non-compliant with the essential condition of submitting the registration certificate, and the amendment to the Instructions to Bidders was valid and clarificatory. The Court found no arbitrariness or favoritism in the tender process, emphasizing the importance of public interest and strict adherence to tender conditions.