LexSIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION NETWORKS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 585 SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION NETWORKS PVT. A .... >-- LTD. & ANR. II. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6515 6f 2008) NOVEMBER 6, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226: c Government contracts - Tender - Award of contract - Administrative decision, judicial review of - Held: Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions - When the decision relating to award of contract D found bonafide and in public interest, Courts should not exercise the power of judicial review to interfere with such administrative decision even if there was procedural lacunae - In the instant case, the contract was for sensitive army equipments needed on urgent basis - Expert Committee E rightly determined price of requisite quantity of goods by multiplying with unit price quoted in the bid documents submitted by all the tenderers - There was no scope for the authority to read into the tender documents suggestion by the appellant, which did not exist in the bid documents ..r. F Moreover, no personal allegation of malafideslfavouritism levelled against the authority- Hence, no fault could be found with the decision taken by the authority/process adopted in awarding the contract - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Government contracts - Administrative decision - Power of Judicial Review - Exercise of. G Respondent No. 2, a Public Sector Undertaking of '-+ Government of India, floated a Request for Proposal (RFP)/Tender for procurement of Digital Radio Trunking 585 H 586 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A System (DRTS)/Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA), a pa.rt of, Technical Communication· System for lndi.an Army/ M•nistry of Defence, Government of India, respondent No. f. In terms of. the tender ·document, the evaluation,· trials and completion of the contract was proposed to be B carried out in five phases. In each phase committees of, experts have been entrusted the task of evaluation of bids and short listing the ~ld~ers by eliminating "those not qualified in terms of ev~luation criteria. In all, eight bidders submitted their bids. After the end of phase Ill, c three bidders viz. appellant No.1, respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have been declared qualified for evaluation in phase IV. In Phase~IVj commercial· bids were opened in the presence of the representatives of all .three bidders and the prices of the main items as per their commercial bids 0 were read out. The total price of appellant No.1, as worked out, was lowest. However, as the proposals of the bidders comprised various details contained in the en.closures to the bid, they.·were informed that a comprehensive evaluation would be.carried out by the Expert Committee E for arriving at L 1 bidder and that any further interaction would only be held with L 1 bidders. The Evaluation Committee asked for certain clarifications in the form of queries from all the three bidders including appellant No. · 1. The bidders gave their clarifications. The Committee, after completion of evaluation of the bids, finalized the F total package cost for each of the bidders. Since name of L-1 lenderer was not announced by the respondents, · appellants filed a representation. Respondents ailegedly did not declare outcome of tenders after Phase IV but negotiated with them. Appellants, one of the bidders, filed G a writ petition praying for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to award the contract in their favour as they being the lowest bidders and not to negotiate with other bidders. The other two bidders were also impleaded as. parties; The petition was dismissed by H , __ L .;:, \ . I 'I SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION NETWORKS PVT. 587 - LTD. & ANR. v. U.0.1 & ORS. the High Court. Hence the present appeal. A .. >- Appellants, inter alia, contended that the bid of appellant No.1 was the lowest of the three technically qualified bidders; that appellant No. 1 was being ousted by adding an imaginary price to its bid, which the B appellants never quoted and such an addition to the bid was unwarranted and amounted to artificially loading the bid; and that a confusion was being created about the ~ nature of the bid. It was clearly the intention of the appellants to indicate the price for 100 units. The unit c base is 1 for 100 and that is how the appellants have understood the matte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.