High Court of Madras

Subaya Constructions Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Vellore City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

MANU/TN/1696/2018

05.04.2018

Commercial

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

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 :