Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

Recycling Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Municipal Corpoation Of Delhi & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (12 Oct 2022)

Court cannot tweak the terms of the tendering process set by an expert

MANU/DE/3951/2022

Contract

The present Judgment will dispose of two Writ Petitions seeking the issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("Respondent No. 1") to execute the agreement dated 10th June, 2022 to operate and maintain facilities to process minimum 1000 tonnes per day (“TPD”) of incinerable waste, fraction recovered from processing of 80,00,000 MT legacy waste to produce RDF and its subsequent transportation and disposal on daily basis.

Present Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the Respondents decision to add additional criteria. Accountability and transparency being the basic tenets of any contractual obligation, this Court does not find the condition arbitrary, mala fides or of a nature which would favour any particular party.

Furthermore, the Respondents, in their LOA dated 10th June, 2022, added the additional condition of having GPS tracking device. In doing so, the Respondents made this a specific condition of the tendering process. However, vide letter, the Petitioners categorically stated that they were not in a position to install a GPS in the vehicle, and hence, could not fulfil the condition of the LOA.

It is evident that the Petitioners did not tender an unconditional acceptance to the LOA. Hence, a valid contract did not come into existence between the Petitioners, and Respondents, and no rights accrued in favour of the Petitioners. Due to the conditional acceptance tendered by the Petitioners, it appears that no contract was concluded between the parties, and no rights accrued in favour of the Petitioners. Hence, the Petitioners cannot seek an enforcement of the agreement dated 10th June, 2022.

It is trite law that, while exercising its tender jurisdiction, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal, and simply reviews the decision made by experts. Even then, the scope of judicial review is fairly narrow, and this Court cannot tweak the terms of the tendering process set by an expert. In the present case, the Petitioners were, and continue to be unable to fulfil an essential condition of the tender, and no valid contract was entered into by the Respondents with the Petitioners. In light of this, this Court does not find any occasion to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to execute the agreement dated 10th June, 2022 or cancel the fresh NIT issued by the Respondents. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present Petitions. Petitions dismissed.

Tags : AGREEMENT   EXECUTION   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved