Uttarakhand HC Declines To Entertain Waste-Tender Challenge Because Firm Had Not Bid, Directs Municipal Board To Decide Its Objection Within 2 Weeks

The petitioner challenged Conditions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 in the technical bid for a solid-waste-management tender issued by the Municipal Board, Mahuakhera Ganj.

The challenged requirements included experience of work for five Municipal Boards or five years, specified qualifications and experience for an environmental or technical specialist, and proof of the availability or registration of at least five suitable commercial vehicles.

The petitioner argued that the conditions were harsh, hyper-technical and arbitrary, including because the Board had its own vehicles.

It had not participated in the tender process when it brought the petition.

Relying on Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 19, the Court stated that tender terms are generally not open to judicial scrutiny and that the procuring authority must have reasonable latitude in setting them; intervention is warranted where the decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.

Under Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, disagreement with the authority’s decision or decision-making process is insufficient for intervention; the threshold of mala fides, favouritism, arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met.

The authority that frames the tender is ordinarily best placed to understand and interpret its requirements, and courts defer to that understanding absent mala fides or perversity.

The Court noted that the petitioner had neither participated in the tender nor made an offer, and held that a bidder’s entitlement is to equality and fair treatment in the evaluation of competitive bids—not to have tender terms set according to its preferences.

Applying the principles in Educomp Datamatics and Afcons Infrastructure, the Court found no basis to interfere: the asserted objections did not establish that the conditions were arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or perverse, and the requirements applied to every bidder rather than being tailor-made for a rival.

It disposed of the petition with a direction to the Executive Officer of the concerned Municipal Board to consider the petitioner’s objection and pass an order in accordance with law within two weeks of presentation of a certified copy of the order.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.