High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Authority Which Floats The Contract Is The Best Judge As To How The Documents Have To Be Interpreted: Calcutta High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

 

Similar News