Kerala High Court: Bail Application Allowed on Ground of Procedural Infraction by Detecting Officer  ||  Delhi High Court: First-Come-First-Serve Criteria Under Election Symbols Order, 1968 Upheld  ||  SC: Open Schools Recognized by CBSE Shall be Recognized by National Medical Council For NEET  ||  MeitY: Social Media Intermediaries to Take Permission Before Launching AI Products in Country  ||  NBDSA Imposes Penalty on Several News Channels for Spreading Communal Hatred  ||  NBDSA Issue Guidelines For Broadcasting Information Related to LGBTQIA+ Community  ||  Gauhati High Court Frames Policy For Persons With Disabilities  ||  All. HC: Bail Granted to Assessee Since Proceedings u/s 70 and 74 of GST Act Pending for Too Long  ||  Kar. HC: Deflection From Terms of Compromise Will Lead to Re-Imposition of Conviction Order  ||  Supreme Court: MPs/MLAs Cannot Claim Immunity Under Constitution of India For Receiving Bribe    

Subaya Constructions Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Vellore City Municipal Corporation and Ors. - (High Court of Madras) (05 Apr 2018)

If decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and in public interest, Courts will not interfere, even if, a procedural error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out

MANU/TN/1696/2018

Commercial

The Petitioner has come forward with instant Writ Petitions for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first Respondent to accept the Work Completion Certificate dated 17th September, 2016 submitted by the Petitioner for processing the tender proceeding in NCB No. 81/2017-18, for providing Sewerage Collection System for UGSS in Vellore Corporation under Packages I and II, tender proceeding No. CNT/SEW/NCB/AMRUT-ADB/001/2017-2018 for providing Comprehensive Sewerage Scheme to Manali, Chinnasekkadu, Karambakkam and Manapakkam in Chennai City; tender proceeding in No. NCB No. 223/2017-18 for providing Sewerage Collection System in the extended areas of Corporation for UGSS in Trichy Corporation under Package I, respectively.

In the instant case, the Petitioner is one of the participants in the tender floated by the first Respondent and as per the tender conditions, a work completion certificate has been produced along with the tender documents. According to the First Respondent, the execution of the work is complex in nature and also involves huge financial implications, so to ensure proper execution of the work and in the public interest, the decision was taken to get opinion of the genuineness of the completion certificate of all the tenderers. The Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Ors., if the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, the Courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The petitioner except making vague allegations, has not produced any materials to show that the action of the first respondent is arbitrary and it has been adopted to eliminate the petitioner from the tender process. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.

It is also relevant to note that, in response to the letter of the First Respondent, an opinion about the performance of the Petitioner has been sent by the second respondent. Whether the opinion of the Second Respondent that, the execution of the work is unsatisfactory, was in fact warranted, or necessary or could be accepted, in view of present Court, need not be tested or decided, in these writ petitions. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the opinion, it has liberty to challenge the same. Present is not a fit case for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to accept the work completion certificate and process the tender document of the Petitioner. Writ Petitions dismissed.

Relevant : Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Ors. MANU/SC/0090/2007

Tags : TENDER   CERTIFICATE   ACCEPTANCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved