M/S. SORATH BUILDERS versus SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDCON LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 20-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 893 
..... 
~ 
MIS. SORATH BUILDERS 
A 
V. 
SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDGON LIMITED & ANR. 
Civil Appeal No. 1127 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 20, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
"' 
Tender: Notice of tender for construction of Veterinary 
Construction Building - Requiring submission of documents c 
within 6 days - Non-acceptance of bid sent three days after 
the last date of receiving the documents - Bid of lowest bidder 
sending documents in time accepted - Quashing of, sought 
on ground of insufficiency of time for submitting tender papers 
-Justification-Held: Not justified, as no prejudice was caused 
to anyone due to time schedule provided by University - Plea D 
of unsuccessful bidder that he could not submit documents in 
time as he was undertaking various construction work and that 
he came to know about tender only on last day cannot be 
accepted as /apse was due to his own fault - There was no 
arbitrariness in decision of University in accepting bid of E 
successful bidder as it was lowest, reasonable and valid - Plea 
of fresh tender process on ground of saving of public money, 
not tenable as delay in avoiding contract would only mean 
increase in cost of construction. 
Administrative Jaw: Interference with tender selection F 
process by High Court - Scope of 
A tender notice was issued by the Respondent 2-
University on 21.11.2008 inviting tenders for construction 
of Veterinary College Building. The tender notice was G 
widely advertised in the largest local daily and also 
published on the internet. The notice required the bidders 
to send the pre-qualification documents by 27 .11.2008 
and 'online' submission of price bid by 28.11.2008. 
893 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S. C.R. 
A 
Three bids were received out of which one did not 
.., 
,.;; 
fulfil the requisite criteria. Out of the remaining two, the 
bid of appellant was the lowest. Since the bid of 
respondent 1 was sent on 1.12.2008 i.e. three days after 
the last date of receiving these documents by the 
B University, the bid of respondent 1 was not opened and 
was not taken into consideration. 
Respondent 1 filed a writ petition before the High 
Court praying for quashing the decision of respo.ndent 2-
University by considering the respondent 1 as disqualified 
C from participating in the tender selection process. 
. 
-
. -~ The 1:1!9h Court held that the University acted 
arbitrarily in requiring the pre-qualification document$ to 
be sent p~ysic~lly so as to reach the University by'.Speed 
Post by· 27:11.2'008, inasni'uch as it meant ttiat the 
D contractor -had to send pre-qualification ·documents by 
the'~ aforesaid ~ode by dispatching 'the. same latest by 
25 .. _11.200~. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed 
and the decision o·f the respondent no. 2 - University 
accepting the .bid of the appellant was quashed and set 
E aside With.a further direction to the University to issue·a 
·fresh tender notice with the same terms and conditions 
but also provide seven days time for submitting the pre-
q u a I ifi cation documents after the end date for 
downloading the bid documents. Aggrieved appellant filed 
·F 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. So far as the issue with regard to 
stipulation that pre-qualification documents to be sent 
G latest by 27.11.2008 for the estimated contract value ·of 
Rs. 8.40 crores, was concerned, three parties applied and 
submitted their tenders and on scrutiny it was found that 
one out of the three did not satisfy the requirements, and 
therefore, his ·tender was rightly rejected by the parties. 
H So far as the tenders of the appellant and respondent no. 
M/S. SORATH BUILDERS V. SHREEJIKRUPA 
895 
BUILDCON LIMITED & ANR. 
~ ~ 
1 were concerned, on going through the record it is found A 
that the respondent no. 1 never specifically raised the 
issue regarding paucity and shortage of time as one of 
the grounds for challenging the decision of the University. · 
The only stand that was taken by respondent no. 1 for 
late submission of his pre-qualification documents was B: 
that he came to know about the tenders only on 27 .11.2008 
as he was undertaking various construction works, and 
+-
therefore, could not submit all the required pre-qualifica-
tion documents in time stipulated in the notice inviti~g 
tenders. Such a stand makes it crystal clear that respondent c 
no. 1 was prevented in submitting the required documents 
in time due 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.