Authority Which Floats The Contract Is The Best Judge As To How The Documents Have To Be Interpreted: Calcutta High Court
In a significant ruling concerning the tender process for government contracts, the High Court of Calcutta has overturned the decision of a Single Judge regarding the disqualification of tenderers in the bid for road works under the Bolpur Highway Division No. II.
Legal Point: The primary legal issue in the case revolved around the interpretation of technical qualification criteria in the tendering process for road work contracts. The Calcutta High Court was tasked with deciding whether the administrative body’s interpretation of technical qualifications should be upheld over a judicial reinterpretation by a Single Judge.
Facts and Issues:
Akash Construction filed appeals against the orders of a Single Judge which had overturned the disqualification of S.B. Construction and Stone Concern Infrastructure from a tender process. The tender in question involved the widening and strengthening of two road sections under the Bolpur Highway Division. The disqualification was based on an assessment that the respondents did not meet specific technical criteria, specifically concerning experience with Interlocking Concrete Block Pavement (ICBP) work.
Detailed Court Assessment:
Scope of Judicial Review: The High Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender processes, especially involving technical assessments. Citing precedents, it stressed that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, illegality, or gross irrationality.
Expertise of Tender Authorities: The court noted that the authorities responsible for issuing the tender are best positioned to understand its technical and specialized requirements. The decision to disqualify the respondents was based on a detailed understanding of the requisite experience needed for the project, particularly regarding ICBP work which formed a substantial part of the project scope.
Relevance of Supreme Court Precedents: References were made to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that courts should defer to the administrative expertise unless there is a clear evidence of mala fides or palpable arbitrariness. The appellant’s reliance on these precedents supported their argument against the Single Judge’s decision which had reinterpreted the eligibility criteria expansively.
Interpretation of Tender Documents: The court disagreed with the Single Judge’s interpretation that the distinction between ICBP and other types of work was not grounded in the tender document. It held that such an interpretation was an overreach beyond judicial review’s appropriate bounds, substituting the court’s judgment for that of the expert administrative body.
Decision: The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Single Judge’s rulings that had qualified the respondents as technically eligible. It upheld the original disqualification by the tender authorities, emphasizing the need for adherence to the stipulated technical criteria and reaffirmed the principle that judicial intervention in technical tender processes should be minimal.
Date of Decision: April 30, 2024
Akash Construction Vs. S.B. Construction and Co. and Ors.
