In a recent judicial proceeding between M/s. Rajaram Construction,Through its authorised signatory, Nanjiram Chaudhari, Maharashtra v/s State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Urban Development Department, Mumbai & Others, a petition was filed challenging the legitimacy of a disqualification notice pertaining to a civil construction tender. The case highlights significant aspects of tender compliance, the intricacies of legal procedures, and the balance between individual rights and public interest.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm with 15 years of experience in civil construction, contested communications dated March 14 and June 18, 2024, regarding the technical bid summary for an e-Tender Notice No. 40 of 2001 (2023-2024). This tender invited bids for constructing a cement concrete road in New Nashik, with an estimated cost of approximately ?5.47 crore and a completion timeline of 18 months. The tender outlined specific eligibility criteria, including prior experience and financial turnover, which bidders needed to meet to qualify. Notably, the eligibility criteria required the submission of bid capacity and technical manpower details by February 29, 2024.

The petitioner argued that a government resolution issued on December 7, 2023, should have influenced the evaluation of tender compliance. The firm claimed it had submitted the required documentation prior to the deadline, including a bid capacity certificate from a Chartered Accountant. However, the authorities insisted that these documents needed to be issued before the stipulated date, leading to the petitioner’s disqualification.

Following unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter amicably, including a legal notice and a suit filed before the Joint Civil Judge, the petitioner ultimately approached the High Court.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the tender evaluation committee's requirements for pre-dated documents were unreasonable, asserting that such certificates are inherently prospective. They cited a precedent case, Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana, arguing that minor technicalities should not lead to disqualification.

In contrast, the counsel for the respondents emphasized the mandatory nature of the tender conditions and pointed out that other bidders complied with the requirements, further highlighting that the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn a previous suit concerning the same issues.

Additionally, counsel for the awarded bidder noted that significant progress had already been made on the project, suggesting that any interference would not only be unwarranted but also detrimental to public interest.

The court acknowledged that judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing whether the decision-making process is marred by irrationality or malice. The judgment in M/s Michigan Rubber India Limited vs. State of Karnataka reinforces this limited scope, urging courts to refrain from substituting their judgment for that of the tendering authority, especially in matters requiring specialized knowledge.

The court further emphasized that construction projects, like the one at issue, are essential for infrastructure development and should not be halted without compelling reasons. The decision highlighted that the determination of a bidder's compliance rests primarily with the evaluating authority, which has the expertise to assess tender conditions.

Ultimately, the court ruled against the petitioner, dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of non-compliance with tender requirements and the absence of any evidence suggesting mala fide actions by the evaluation committee. The court underscored the principle that allowing the petitioner to proceed would not only disrupt the tender process but also incur additional costs to the state, which runs counter to public interest.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to tender conditions and the limitations of judicial intervention in procurement processes. The outcome reaffirms the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of public procurement while balancing individual claims against broader societal interests.