MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR. versus BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 27-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR.
 v.
BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018)
MARCH 27, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Tenders – Appellant-Corporation issued NIT for appointment
of agency to carry out “Municipal Solid Waste Door to Door
Collection and Transportation” – Bids were invited following a two
envelope system i.e. a technical bid and a financial bid – Technical
bids of the parties were analysed thoroughly by a technical expert
and marks were awarded as per specifications of the NIT –
Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited (GWMC) scored
highest marks based on technical and financial weighted scores
and hence was awarded the contract – Aggrieved, the unsuccessful
bidder (respondent no.1) filed writ petition – High Court allowed
the same and set aside the contract awarded in favour of  GWMC –
On appeal, held: As a decision was qualitatively arrived at by the
technical expert respondent no.2, the High Court need not have
gone into the merits of such decision as an appellate authority,
especially when there was no bias or malafide – There was no
illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness on the
part of the expert body while in action – Moreover, the decision
was taken keeping in mind the public interest and work experience
of the successful bidder – In absence of any document evidencing
the experience in the field in question in favour of respondent no.1,
the High Court was not right in increasing the marks under the
head of number of years of experience and expertise – High Court
was also not justified in increasing the marks for responsiveness,
as respondent no.1 had suppressed the fact that it had received
show cause notices from various municipal corporations and thus,
High Court ignored the element of public interest involved in the
matter – Further, the method for evaluation of the financial bid as
applied by the High Court was also not proper and was illogical,
which led to unreasonableness and travesty of justice – Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016 – r.22.
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 861
    861
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Tenders – Judicial review of administrative decisions – Held:
The judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent
arbitrariness – The purpose of judicial review of administrative
action is to check whether the choice or decision is made lawfully
and not to check whether the choice or decision is sound – If the
process adopted or decision made by the authority is not mala fide
and not intended to favour someone; if the process adopted or
decision made is neither so arbitrary nor irrational that under the
facts of the case it can be concluded that no responsible authority
acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have
reached such a decision; and if the public interest is not affected,
there should be no interference u/Art.226 – Constitution of India –
Art.226.
Tenders – Whether under the scope of judicial review, the
High Court could ordinarily question the judgment of the expert
consultant on the issue of technical qualifications of a bidder when
the consultant takes into consideration various factors including
the basis of non-performance of the bidder – Held: Under the scope
of judicial review, the High Court could not ordinarily interfere
with the judgment of the expert consultant on the issues of
technical qualifications of a bidder when the consultant takes into
consideration various factors including the basis of non-
performance of the bidder – The power of judicial review can be
exercised only if there is unreasonableness, irrationality or
arbitrariness and in order to avoid bias and mala fides.
Tenders – Whether a bidder who submits a bid expressly
declaring that it is submitting the same independently and without
any partners, consortium or joint venture can rely upon the
technical qualifications of any third party for its qualification –
Held: No.
Tenders – Whether the High Court can independently
evaluate the technical bids and financial bids of the parties, as an
appellate authority, for coming to the conclusion – Held: It is not
open to the Court to independently evaluate the technical bids and
financial bids of the parties as an appellate authority for coming to
its conclusion inasmuch as unless the thresholds of mala fides,
intention to favour someone or bias, arbitrariness, irrationality or
perversity are met, wher

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