Challenge against the tender process and allocation, alleging procedural lapses and failure to grant preferential treatment under the Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) policy.

1. Petition Basis and Claims

   • Para 1-2: GTI Infotel challenged the tender process under Article 226, alleging non-compliance with MSE policy, claiming improper treatment in bid evaluation despite meeting all technical criteria.

2. Timeline of Bidding Events

   • Para 3-10: Key events of bid submission, evaluation meetings, reverse auction, bid matching by Respondent No.3, and later modifications in bid price. Petitioner contended these adjustments were unfair and raised concerns of favoritism.

3. MSE Status and Purchase Preference Dispute

   • Para 11-16: GTI Infotel claimed that its MSE status was disregarded due to oversight. Respondent No.1 argued that GTI failed to affirmatively select the MSE preference in the bid process, leading to its treatment as a non-MSE entity.

4. Contention on Tender Conditions

   • Para 17-23: Respondents argued the tender document clearly required bidders to select specific options for MSE preference. GTI’s failure to do so, according to Respondents, barred it from claiming MSE benefits.

5. Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

   • Para 24-30: The Court noted the Supreme Court precedents that limit judicial interference in tenders, emphasizing that courts only intervene if there's arbitrariness, mala fides, or significant procedural error.

6. Technical Requirement for MSE Selection

   • Para 31-36: Court observed that the tender conditions explicitly required an affirmative selection for MSE preference, and GTI failed to provide evidence showing such selection during the bidding.

7. Public Interest Considerations

   • Para 47-50: The Court upheld that the public interest in completing the petroleum supply chain project outweighs procedural delays, especially as substantial work was already completed by Respondent No.3.

Ratio Decidendi

Judicial Review in Tender Process: The Court ruled that judicial interference in the tendering process is limited unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or procedural irregularity that harms public interest. Here, failure to opt for MSE purchase preference as per tender requirements precluded GTI Infotel from claiming MSE benefits.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, Article 226: Jurisdiction invoked for writ petitions.
• Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) Order, 2012: Framework discussed in terms of MSE preference and mandatory bid requirements.

Subjects:

Public Procurement, MSE Policy, Judicial Review, Tender Compliance, High Court Judgment, Preferential Treatment, Public Interest