Tendering Authority Cannot Assign Alternative Interpretation To Tender Clause Which Is Unambiguous: Bombay High Court
The Bombay Excessive Court docket has held {that a} tender clause granting choice to bidders making use of for the next variety of warehouses can’t be prolonged to the Central Retailer Workplace if the tender doc attracts a transparent distinction between the 2 classes. The Court docket quashed the lease awarded to at least one bidder and restored the tender course of.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was listening to a writ petition filed by Huge Media Community Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the tender course of for leasing. The petitioner had utilized just for the Central Retailer Workplace, whereas Respondent No. 4 had utilized for eight warehouses and the Central Retailer Workplace. Though each bidders quoted the identical monetary bid, the Central Retailer Workplace was awarded to Respondent No. 4 primarily based on a choice clause that prioritized bidders making use of for extra warehouses.
The Court docket held that choice couldn’t be prolonged to the Central Retailer Workplace. It noticed:
“Clause 4(IV) of the Tender Doc offered for the grant of choice to the bidder submitting bids in respect of the utmost variety of ‘warehouses’. If the Tendering Authority meant to use choice clause 4(IV) even to Central Retailer Workplace, it should have used the phrase “premises” slightly than utilizing the phrase “warehouses” in Clause 4(IV).”
The Court docket famous that there are a number of clauses within the Tender Doc, which clearly point out {that a} aware distinction is made by the Tendering Authority between warehouses and the Central Retailer Workplace whereas implementing the impugned tender course of. It rejected the State’s argument that no distinction is drawn within the Tender Doc between warehouses and Central Retailer Workplace, and there may be uniform utility of the phrases and circumstances within the Tender Doc in respect of warehouses and Central Retailer Workplace.
Whereas conceding the settled place of regulation that interpretation of the tendering authority is closing and binding on bidders, the court docket distinguished this explicit case on the premise that it doesn’t contain two attainable interpretations of Clause 4(IV).
“Because the tender circumstances are clear and unambiguous, in our view, Clause 4(IV) had no utility whereas allotting the Central Retailer Workplace premises, which is clearly distinct from the 16 warehouses as per the Tender Doc itself,” the court docket noticed.
The Court docket additional remarked that because the lease can be in respect of an extended interval of 30 years, mere possession of the Central Retailer Workplace by Respondent No.4 for about 5 months wouldn’t create any equities in its favour.
Consequently, the court docket put aside the impugned resolution of allotting the Central Retailer Workplace to Respondent No.4.
Case Title: Huge Media Community Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 36983 of 2024]
