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

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1090 · Decided: 18-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
M/S. GALAXY TRANSPORT AGENCIES, CONTRACTORS,
TRADERS, TRANSPORTS AND SUPPLIERS
v.
M/S. NEW J.K. ROADWAYS, FLEET OWNERS AND
TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4107 of 2020)
DECEMBER 18, 2020
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Tenders – Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone invited
online tenders from reputed transporters, registered firms/
associations for the supply of various types of commercial vehicles
(without fuel) for the carriage of troops and equipment for the
Financial Year 2020-2021 – Four parties submitted their bids –
The Tender Opening Committee found that respondent no. 1 did not
meet the qualifying requirements of the technical bid – The appellant
fulfilling the requirements and being the lowest bidder, was allotted
the contract for the supply of commercial vehicles – Writ petition by
respondent no. 1 – The Single Judge of the High Court found that
the appellant fulfilled the eligibility condition of holding a valid
service licence; 31 vehicles were owned by the appellant, another
eligibility condition was satisfied – Insofar, eligibility criteria of
having work experience was concerned, the Single Judge of the
High Court held that since the tendering authority was the best
judge as to whether such eligibility condition had in fact been
satisfied, a judicial hands-off was mandated – Thus, all the three
contentions of respondent no. 1 raised against the appellant were
rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the
Division Bench of the High Court held that the respondent no. 1
having satisfied condition no. 31 of  N.I.T was wrongly disqualified
by the tendering authority – The Division Bench of the High Court
held that the expression ‘HMV/ LMV’ meant that there was an option
of furnishing the particulars of either HMVs or LMVs or both types
of vehicles and the respondent no. 1 had submitted bid accordingly
– The action of the officials in rejecting the bid of respondent no. 1
on the ground of non-furnishing of list of both types of vehicles is
irrational, arbitrary and perverse – On appeal, held: A cursory
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 1090
1090
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
glance at Condition No. 31 of N.I.T would show that the 30 vehicles
referred to, are ‘both HMV/LMV’ – The tendering authority has
construed this condition to mean that both types of vehicles, i.e.
HMV and LMV, need to be included in the list of 30 vehicles
submitted by each bidder – In a series of judgments, the Supreme
Court has held that 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 – In accordance with the settled law
and noting the interpretation of the tendering authority, it cannot
be said that the interpretation done by the authority was a perverse
one – The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have
interfered with it by giving its own interpretation and not giving
proper credence to the word ‘both’ appearing in Condition No. 31
of the N.I.T – Therefore, the Division Bench decision is set aside
and the Single Judge’s judgment is restored.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. A cursory glance at Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T.
would show that the 30 vehicles referred to, are “both HMV/
LMV”. The tendering authority has construed this condition to
mean that both types of vehicles, i.e., HMV and LMV, need to be
included in the list of the 30 vehicles submitted by each bidder.
[Para 13][1098-E-F]
2. 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. [Para 14][10968-F-G]
3. In accordance with these Supreme Court judgments and
noting that the interpretation of the tendering authority in this
case cannot be said to be a perverse one, the Division Bench
ought not to have interfered with it by giving its own interpretation
and not giving proper credence to the word “both’” appearing in
Condition No. 31 of the N.I.T. For this reason, the Division
Bench’s conclusion that respondent no.1 was wrongly declared
to be ineligible, is set aside. [Para 17][1100-D-F]
M/S. GALAXY TRANSPORT AGENCIES, CONTRACTORS, TRADERS,
TRANSPORTS AND SUPPLIERS v. M/S. NEW J.K. ROADWAYS,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.