Facts
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) invited bids for a three-year canteen-services contract.
Source reference: no citationUnder the Bid Qualification Criteria (BQC), an MSE bidder relying on three works had to establish that each had an annualised basic value of at least ₹11.72 crore.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, 25–26; paras 3, 33–34A corrigendum stated that purchase orders with corresponding work-completion certificates for individual years of a multi-year contract might be considered.
Source reference: pp. 5–6; para 4Vidya Caterers submitted three completed-contract credentials.
Source reference: no citationBPCL calculated their annualised values by dividing each contract’s total value by its duration: ₹10.195 crore, ₹12.66 crore and approximately ₹8.5 crore.
Source reference: pp. 27–29; paras 38–40As only the second credential met the threshold, BPCL rejected the technical bid.
Source reference: pp. 27–29; paras 38–40The firm challenged that decision under Article 226, arguing that the corrigendum required consideration of actual annual execution rather than division of the total contract value by its tenure.
Source reference: pp. 7–10; paras 8–15Issues
1. Whether BPCL’s method of calculating annualised contract value by dividing the total contract value by the contract period was consistent with the BQC.
Source reference: pp. 25–29; paras 33–402. Whether the corrigendum’s provision for considering individual-year work-completion certificates applied to Vidya Caterers’ completed contracts, and whether the technical rejection warranted interference under Article 226.
Source reference: pp. 29–31; paras 41–46Law Applied
Article 226 judicial review of tender decisions is limited: courts ordinarily defer to the tendering authority’s interpretation of its own documents and its technical evaluation, intervening where the decision is mala fide, biased, perverse, irrational, arbitrary or unlawful.
Source reference: pp. 14–24; paras 25–32The Court relied on Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa for these principles.
Source reference: pp. 14–24; paras 25–32Under the BQC, a bidder relying on three works had to establish that each met the applicable annualised-value threshold.
Source reference: pp. 25–26; paras 33–34Reasoning
The Court treated the corrigendum as addressing ongoing or running multi-year contracts, enabling bidders with such contracts to rely on individual-year work-completion certificates; it did not apply that method to Vidya Caterers’ completed contracts.
Source reference: pp. 25–26, 29–30; paras 35, 41–43Applying the BQC to the three completed contracts, the Court accepted BPCL’s annualised calculations and found that only one credential exceeded the ₹11.72 crore threshold, whereas the third-category route required three qualifying works.
Source reference: pp. 27–29; paras 38–40The Court also noted that the successful L-1 bidder qualified on completed contracts meeting the BQC threshold, and found no mala fides, manifest arbitrariness or illegality warranting judicial intervention.
Source reference: pp. 26–27, 30–31; paras 37, 44–46Holding
The Court held that BPCL had rightly rejected Vidya Caterers’ technical bid and that the corrigendum did not assist the firm because it had relied on completed contracts.
Finding no basis for interference under Article 226, the Court dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule.
Source reference: p. 31; paras 46–47Original Court PDF
Vidya CaterersvsBharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
