Law: Public Procurement Rules, 2004

Section: 25

Public Procurement Rules, 2004---

----R.25---Public procurement---Judicial review---Contractual liability---Principle---Bid security, forfeiture of---Appellant was successful bidder who submitted bid security but due to non-filing of performance security, respondent / authority forfeited its bid security---Validity---Principle of judicial review cannot be denied so far as exercise of contractual powers of government bodies are concerned but it is intended to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and is exercised in the larger public interest or if it is brought to the notice of the Court that in the matter of award of a contract power has been exercised for any collateral purpose---Government undertakings and statutory bodies should have free hand while framing terms and conditions of tender and Courts ought not to interfere with the same unless there is material on the record to demonstrate that they are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias---Court cannot interfere with terms and conditions of a tender because it feels that some other term in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical---Courts should normally not interfere in the contractual matters in exercise of powers of judicial review and it can only be exercised in case it is satisfied that the process adopted was mala fide or made to favour someone or the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary that no man of ordinary prudence could have reached---There was no arbitrariness, favouritism or exercise of power for any collateral purpose by respondent / National Highway Authority in annulling bidding process and forfeiting bid security furnished by appellant / bidder---It was appellant's / bidder's obligation to submit its bid in conformity with the requirements of bidding document ITB (Instructions to Bidders)---Respondent / authority did not commit any illegality by not entertaining appellant's / bidder's belated request to treat its financial bid as Rs.260,772,272/- instead of Rs.4,082,400,000/---If Division Bench of High Court were to hold otherwise, it would amount to rewriting the terms of bidding documents---Annulment of award and forfeiture of bid security furnished by appellant / bidder was done by National Highway Authority in conformity with the requirements of relevant clauses of ITB---High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in, circumstances.

National Institutional Facilitation Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federal Board of Revenue PLD 2020 Isl. 378; Tez Gas (Private) Ltd. v. Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority PLD 2017 Lah. 111 and Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 ref.