THE BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS. versus AMR DEV PRABHA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 18-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
THE BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS.
v.
AMR DEV PRABHA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2197 of 2020)
MARCH 18, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI. B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Tenders – A notice inviting tender was issued by appellant-
BCCL for purposes of ‘Hiring of HEMM for removal of OB,
extraction and transportation of coal with fire fighting.....’ – The
appellant aimed of contracting firm which offered the lowest cost
estimate for fulfilment of the tender work – The bidding was stated
to be conducted online – When the auction proceeded, there were
connectivity problems leading to failure in submission bids – In the
interregnum, the last bid of Rs. 2345 crores made by respondent
No. 1 at 12:33 p.m. went unresponded for thirty minutes and auction
was automatically closed at 1:03 p.m. – Respondent no. 1 was
declared lowest bidder – However, taking notice of technical issues,
the auction was restarted at 2.30 p.m. and same was communicated
to all bidders – Accordingly, various bids were received by many
participants including respondent no. 1 – The auction proceeded
to the extended time of 1 hour and 27 minutes – The LOA was issued
to the successful bidder, i.e. respondent no. 6 – Respondent no. 1
filed writ petition for declaring that it was successful bidder and
for quashing the LOA issued to respondent no. 6 – It was contended
that there were lapses on the part of the appellant – The Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed it – However, a Division Bench
of the High Court held that there were procedural lapses and
quashed the LOA issued by the appellant and directed reconduction
of the auction – On appeal, held: The Division Bench of the High
Court was cognizant of the principles surrounding scope of judicial
review in tenders, however, it failed to effectively evaluate whether
larger public interest was being affected – The interest of the
respondent no.1 was purely private and monetary in nature – There
are concurrent finding of the second Independent External Monitors,
CERT-In, TCL, as well as the Central Vigilance Commission that the
auction process was not afflicted by collusion, and confirmed the
existence of connectivity problems which necessitated resumption
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 603
603
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
of the auction process – Before resumption of auction process, it is
clear that the message was communicated to all the bidders, stating
that the auction process would be extended by a period equivalent
to the time between closure of auction at 1:03 p.m. and resumption
at 2.30 p.m. – Not only did such uniform communication put all
bidders on an equal footing, but there was no possibility of any
confusion given the clear wordings of the email – The minutes after
the resumption of the auction process, bids started coming in and
more than a dozen bids were received subsequently – Therefore, the
impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is not
correct in its conclusion that there were substantial procedural lapses
on part of the appellant – Resultantly, the judgment of the Division
Bench is set aside.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: Maintainability of Writ Petition
1. The scope of judicial review in tenders has been explored
in-depth in a catena of cases. It is settled that constitutional courts
are concerned only with lawfulness of a decision, and not its
soundness. Phrased differently, Courts ought not to sit in appeal
over decisions of executive authorities or instrumentalities.
Plausible decisions need not be overturned, and latitude ought
to be granted to the State in exercise of executive power so that
the constitutional separation of powers is not encroached upon.
However, allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety would be enough grounds for courts to assume
jurisdiction and remedy such ills. This is especially true given
our unique domestic circumstances, which have demonstrated
the need for judicial intervention numerous times. Hence, it would
only be the decision-making process which would be the subject
of judicial enquiry, and not the end result (save as may be
necessary to guide determination of the former). [Para 29][616-
C-E]
2. In cases where a constitutional right is infringed, writs
would ordinarily be the appropriate remedy. In tender matters,
such can be either when a party seeks to hold the State to its
duty of treating all persons equally or prohibit it from acting
arbitrarily; or when executive action

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