The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5934 of 2024 ---- M/s Quality Caterer, a partnership firm, having its registered office at-95A, Naresh Mitra Sarani, P.O. Bhawnipore, P.S.- Bhawanipore, District- Kolkata, Pincode- 700025, West Bengal, through its Partner Sri Malay Sarkar, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Mrinal Kanti Sarkar, residing at- 21/H, Tollygunge Road, P.O. & P.S.- Kalighat, District- Kolkata, Pincode- 700026, West Bengal. .......Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences(RIMS), Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, District Ranchi, Pincode-834009. 3. The Medical Superintendent-cum-Chairperson of Procurement Committee, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, (RIMS), Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi, Pincode-834009. .....Respondents --- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of into reasonableness, consideration the national priorities; it would be legitimate take to (b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited; (c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted; (d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. 24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”? and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.” 3 4. As can be seen from the above, in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude would be required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts could not be warranted. The pre-conditions or qualifications for tenders are required to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work. 5. Having considered the above conditions prescribed in the subject tender, it is apparent that these conditions have been imposed to ensure that the contractor would have the capacity and resources to successfully execute the work. No material is placed by the petitioner to show that the action of the respondents is malicious or a misuse of power or is intended to favour someone. It cannot also be said that the process adopted or decision made is arbitrary or irrational. Also, public interest appears not in any way to be effected. 6. Having regard to the above legal position, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
Arguments
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp.-RIMS : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate --- : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C to A.G Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate --- 02/ Dated: 18.11.2024 In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the eligibility criteria fixed by the respondents in the e-Tender Notice dated 05.10.2024 and the Corrigendum dated 09.10.2024 regarding Outsourcing of Hospital Patient Dietary Services. In particular, he has challenged Clause c, d and g of the eligibility criteria/ technical bid requirements prescribing minimum criterion for bidders, which are as under : c) The bidder should have experience in providing dietary services of serving in at least one 1200 bedded Govt./Semi Govt./PSU Hospitals for a continuous period of 3 years during last 5 years. d) The bidder should have at least total average annual turnover of Rs. 5 Crores in the last three financial years i.e. 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 1 g) Bidder should have registration with ESI & EPF of minimum 150 employees. 2. His contention is that under the tender conditions weightage for technical part is given as 70% and for financial part 30% and the method of calculation of the qualification points is indicated in a Column at Page 39 of the Paper Book. His contention is that even if he fulfils the minimum eligibility criteria, he would still not be eligible as per the qualification percentage marks. It is also his further contention that the prescription of average annual turnover of Rs. 5 Crores in the previous three Financial Years mentioned in Clause-d, is arbitrary. According to the counsel for the petitioner, these conditions are tailor made, arbitrary and unreasonable and only to suit a specific class of tenderers and they do not align with the rationale/reasoning behind issuing the tender. He also contends that description of such eligibility criteria by the respondents would preclude bonafide vendors such as the petitioner-Firm from being eligible for the said tender and that there is thus a violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Supreme Court of India had occasion to consider the scope of interference in judicial review with the tender conditions/ eligibility criteria imposed in tenders by a tendering authority in the case of “Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216. After referring to a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of “Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651” and other decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up the principles in paragraph Nos. 23 & 24 at Page- 229 as under: 2
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J) (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk/Vedanti 4