BN INFRAPROJECTS LLP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Imposition of conditions in a Notice Inviting Tender or the interpretation thereof are subject matters exclusively within the domain of the owner. Unless the aforesaid conditions are wholly opposed to public policy or are accentuated by malice so as to favour a vested interested party to the exclusion of other bidders, such conditions are not to be interfered with. That is the general interpretation of the law holding the field as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions starting from Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 and reiterated in the latest cases of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 , Central Coal Fields Limited Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium and Ors.) reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622, Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. reported in 2019 (6) SCALE 70 and Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2019) SCC Online 1133 .

(2.) With that backdrop, the present issue is required to be examined. In fact a common issue has arisen in these three writ petitions which were taken up for an analogous hearing and being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(3.) Before going to the issue involved which has called for adjudication, the brief facts of the cases may be noted in the following manner. The petitioners in all the three cases are the same. While the petitioner no. 1 is a limited liability partnership firm, the other petitioners are the partners of the same. The petitioner no. 1 had submitted its bid in response to certain NIT's floated by the Railways involving three different works. However, the bid was rejected on the technical ground itself of not meeting the eligibility criteria. The petitioners contend that the rejection has been done by misinterpreting the tender conditions by holding the petitioner no. 1 to be ineligible for such bidding. The further case of the petitioners is that the price quoted by the petitioners is less than the price of the private respondent who was purported to be selected and therefore, the element of public interest also comes in.