Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Novo Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India And Others - (High Court of Delhi) (12 May 2023)

Authority that authors the tender documents is the best person to appreciate the requirements of the tender and its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review

MANU/DE/3166/2023

Civil

The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by the rejection of its bid for e-tender No.RC-22-23/159 ('said Tender') issued by Respondent No.2 through Respondent No.3 for supply of PVMS No.020181, Injection Varicella Vaccine, live attenuated, monovalent, containing at least 1000 PFU per 0.5 ml; as being unlawful, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and malafide.

A perusal of the material on record shows that Clause 10 of Part II of the Tender document provides that as per Notification dated 23rd July, 2020 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, any bidder from a country which shares a land border with India will only be eligible for the bid, if it is registered with the competent authority constituted under the DPIIT and an affidavit is required to be submitted by the participant firm, which has admittedly not been submitted by the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner, imports the vaccine from China, which is a country sharing a land border with India and therefore the Petitioner was required to comply with the requirements of Clause 10 in Part II of the Tender Document.

The instant Tender was for supply of Injection Varicella Vaccine, which is antidote for chicken pox and the said Injection was to be supplied to the Indian Army. A feeble attempt was made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that such certificate was not necessary in the facts of the present case.

The fact that Petitioner did not submit the relevant documents at the time of submitting its bid has been acknowledged by the Petitioner. It is well settled that, the authority that authors the tender documents is the best person to understand and appreciate the requirements of the tender and its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner has himself acknowledged the fact that he does not have complete documents that were necessary for his bid to be evaluated by the Respondent, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order of the Respondent rejecting the bid of the Petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Tags : BID   EVALUATION   REJECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved