JUDGMENT
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
Page 0053
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner had initially prayed for a direction on he espondents to consider his bid and call the petitioner for negotiation in terms of Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT) dated 21st April, 2007 and for quashing the impugned letter, whereby one M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency, Kujju, Hazaribagh was called for negotiation. During the pendency of this writ petition, decision has been taken by the respondents to award contract in favour of M/s. Rajiv Transport Page 0054 Coal Agency. In view of the charged circumstance, the petitioner by way of amendment has prayed for quashing the said decision.
2. The said notice, inviting tender, was issued by the Central Coalfields Ltd. for allotment of work for transfer of coal by Tractor Pay Loader into Tractor Tipping Trucks from Pundi OC Surface Top and transportation to Rajrappa Washery Bunker/Stock after weighment at Rajrappa Washery Weighbridge. The petitioner had applied for allotment of the said work in prescribed form along with demand draft of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) Bank Guarantee and other documents, as required by the said NIT.
3. According to the petitioner, the price bid of Part-II, which was in sealed cover, was opened on 15th June, 2007. The rates of the petitioner and that of M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency, Kujju, Hajaribagh were same, but the petitioner was not called for negotiation. The petitioner came to know that M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency, Kujju was declared ‘L-1’ and was called for negotiation. The petitioner learnt that its bid was rejected only due to an error in quoting the rate for two items. The petitioner inadvertently quoted its rate 111/11 against Clause 1 in place of 5/55 and against Clause 2, as 5/55 in place of 111/11.
4. Petitioner contended that the respondents have not taken into consideration the rate quoted in totality. The entry of the rate(s) was inadvertently reversed. The same was a clerical error. It was not fair on the part of the respondents to reject the petitioner’s bid on the said ground.
5. The petitioner by his representation dated 30th June, 2007 requested the respondents to consider the rate quoted by the petitioner, which, in totality, is equal to M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency and requested to give him an opportunity to rectify the NIT. But his representation was not considered. The petitioner then preferred this writ petition.
6. The respondents ultimately took decision to award the contract, in question, in favour of the respondent-M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency during the pendency of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the decision of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. is wholly discriminatory, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
7. Two sets of counter affidavit have been filed in this writ petition, one by M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. and the other by the private respondent.
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd., it has been stated, inter alia, that;
(i) there is no illegality or arbitrariness on their part in not considering the petitioner’s bid. It is admitted by the petitioner itself that the rates quoted by the petitioner were reverse and were unworkable and unresponsive;
(ii) the petitioner has quoted the rate for transportation at Rs. 5.55 paise per tone, whereas M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency has quoted the rate of transportation at Rs. 111.11 paise pet lone against the estimated rate of Rs. 101.19 paise. Earlier also, the petitioner had taken part in the bid and had quoted erratic rate. He is in the habit of quoting such erratic and unworkable rate;
(iii) Clause 24.2(c) and 24.3 of the General Condition of the contract empower the respondents to cancel such bid, which is not substantially responsive. In terms of the said clauses, the petitioner’s bid was rejected and as such, there was no occasion for calling him for the price bid;
Page 0055
(iv) the petitioner has deliberately raised this question after the price bid has been opened and how after the opening of the bid, he has claimed that he had committed mistake in mentioning the rate;
(v) the petitioner was earlier allotted the work of the same nature, but his performance was not satisfactory.
9. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency. It has been stated, inter alia, that the prayer sought for by the petitioner is not at all tenable in law. The petitioner’s bid has been rejected by the Tender Committee after due consideration and for the valid reasons. The petitioner itself has admitted that rates were not properly quoted in the bid offer. The rejection of petitioner’s bid by the Tender Committee has not been challenged by the petitioner and the same became final. The petitioner has not fulfilled the required criteria and the rate of one item quoted by him is unconscionably much excess than the limit fixed in the tender. The process of the tender has now been finalised and the Chief General Manager has already issued work order to the respondent. This respondent has accepted the agreement and has also commenced the work.
10. Mr. I. Sinha, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the decision of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to take part in price bid is arbitrary and unjust. The respondents should have read and understood the petitioner’s bid as a prudent man and should not have rejected the petitioner’s bid only for quoting the rates in reverse order. The rate quoted by the petitioner for Item No. 1 should have been read as the rate quoted for Item No. 2 and vice-verse for Item No. 1. But the respondents on the ground of the said mistake, which was a mere clerical error, deliberately rejected the petitioner’s bid only in order to allot the work to M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency and to deprive the petitioner of its legal rights. The respondents have gone to the extent of disobeying the interim order of this Court by allotting the work during the pendency of this writ petition. The entire process of the allotment is vitiated on account of the said illegality and arbitrariness.
11. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency, and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Central Coalfields Ltd., vehemently contested the said contentions of the petitioner. It has been submitted that;
(i) the petitioner has himself not approached this Court with clean hands and has made frivolous and baseless statement without any basis. The erratic quotation of his price bid is not apparent, which is unworkable and unresponsive. The petitioner is in habit of quoting such erratic rates and taking undue advantage by claiming the part of the work, which is beneficial and by leaving the part of the work, which is not beneficial to his interest. On the basis of such erratic quotation, the petitioner had earlier done beneficial part of the work and denied the other part, which did not put taking the ground of mistake;
(ii) the petitioner’s writ petition is also not maintainable on the ground that he has not challenged the decision of the Tender Committee by which the work has been allotted to this respondent. Learned Counsel submitted that this Court has got limited scope for review of the decision of the Tender. Committee, which is an expert committee. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not substitute its own opinion;
Page 0056
(iii) learned Counsel referred to and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651;
(iv) learned Counsel further submitted that the writ petitioner has sought adjudication of private dispute of facts which has got no public element. The petitioner has failed to make out or substantiate any case of mala fide. The petitioner, who failed to fulfil the requisite criteria of the NIT, is not entitled for any relief. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors. .
12. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and materials available on record as also the submissions made on their behalf, what I find distinctly in the admission of the petitioner that it had quoted the bid rates wrongly. The rates quoted by the petitioner were found unworkable and disproportionately unresponsive.
13. The Tender Committee for the said reason did not call the petitioner and decided to award the contract in favour of the respondent-M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency. The petitioner has not challenged the said decision of the expert Tender Committee. The said decision is, thus, final.
14. It is well settled that this Court, like an appellate forum, cannot go into the disputed facts and appraise the decision. This Court has got limited jurisdiction to examine the decision-making process. It cannot substitute its own view. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular (Supra).
15. In the instant case, the Tender Committee, having found the petitioner’s bid not in order, unworkable and unresponsive, decided not to call for negotiation. The said decision was taken on the basis of the admitted wrong quotation of the price bid in its application. The petitioner itself is responsible for quoting such bid. The respondents cannot be faulted for relying on the same and rejecting the petitioner’s offer.
16. In view of the above, I find no arbitrariness, unreasonableness, irrationality or illegality in the decision-making process of the respondents. Further, there is contest between two contractors and there is no element of public interest in the instant case. It is not the case of the petitioner that the work has been allotted to the private respondent- M/s. Rajiv Transport Coal Agency on a higher price, causing loss or adversely affecting the public interest. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that even the past record of the petitioner is not good and his performance in the previous similar contract allotted to him by the respondents is not satisfactory.
17. Since the Expert Committee has taken decision on considering all the relevant facts and there being no arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality in decision-making process or involvement of any public interest, this Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Tender Committee, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. (Supra).
18. I, therefore, find no legal ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents and grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
19. There is no order as to costs.