LexTEJAS CONSTRUCTIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. versus MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SENDHWA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012] 4 S.C.R. 190 TEJAS CONSTRUCTIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SENDHWA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4195 of 2012) MAY 4, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Administrative Law: Judicial review of award of contract by municipality - Scope of - Acceptance of bid of a contractor for construction of Integrated water supply scheme by Municipal Council challenged by the unsuccessful bidder - Held: The findings 0 recorded by the High Court with regard to the requirements as per the notice inviting tenders and the eligibility and experience of the successful bidder, are in no way irrational or absurd - Besides, the Municipal Council had the advantage of aid and advice of an empanelled consultant, a E technical hand, who could well appreciate the significance of the tender condition regarding the bidder executing the single integrated water supply scheme and fulfilling that condition of tender by reference to the work undertaken by them - Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court of the allotment of work made in favour of F the successfully bidder - In the light of the settled legal position and in the absence of any ma/a fide or arbitrariness in the process of evaluation of bids and the determination of the eligibility of the bidders, the Court does not consider it to be a fit case for interference - Tenders -Award of construction G contract. The respondent-Municipal Council invited tenders for construction of an Integrated Water Supply Scheme, in terms of the conditions stipulated in the notice inviting H 190 TEJAS CONSTRUCTIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 191 v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SENDHWA tenders (NIT). Out of the four bidders, including the A appellant and respondent no. 2, found eligible, respondent no. 1 accepted the bid offered by respondent no. 2.· The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the eligibility of respondent no. 2 on the grounds: (1) that respondent no. 2 had not filed the requisite certified B balance-sheets for five years immediately preceding the issue of NIT; and (2) that respondent no. 2 did not have the requisite experience of executing a single integrated water supply scheme of the required value. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A challenge to the award of the project work in favour of respondent No.2 involved judicial review of administrative action. The scope and approach to be D adopted in the process of any such review is well settled. [para 8] [198-D] Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 122 = (1994) 6 SCC 651; Raunaq International Limited v. E I. V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 49; Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India & Ors. 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 398 = (2006) 10 SCC 1; Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publication Ltd. 1993 (1) SCR 81 = (1993) 1 SCC 445; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International F Airport Ltd. & Ors. 2000 (1) SCR 505 = (2000) 2 sec 617; Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. & Ors. 2005 (3) SCR 666 = (2005) 6 sec 138 and Jagdish Manda/ v. State of Orissa 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 606 = (2007) 14 SCC 517 - referred to. 1.2. As regards the plea that respondent No.2 had not satisfied the requirement of filing audited balance sheets G for the five years preceding award of the contract, it is significant to note that the date of submission of tender was initially fixed upto 25.3.2011 but the same was H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A extended upto 7.4.2011. That being so, 5 years immediately preceding the issue of the tender notice would have included the year 2010-2011 also for which financial year, audit of the company's books, accounts and documents had not been completed. Such being the B case, respondent No.2 could not possibly comply with the requirement of the tender notice or produce certified copy of the audited balance-sheet for the said year. All that it could possibly do was to obtain a certificate based on the relevant books, registers, records accounts etc. c of the company, which certificate was indeed produced by the said respondent. The High Court has rightly observed that the appellant had not disputed the correctness of the turnover certified by the Chartered Accountant for the year 2010-2011 nor was it disputed that 0 the same satisfied the requirem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.