Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by BEST and EVEY Trans Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the Bombay High Court's order dated 05.07.2022. The dispute arose from a tender floated by BEST for supply, operation, and maintenance of 1400 Single Decker AC Electric Buses. The tender required a minimum operating range of 200 km in single charge under actual conditions with not more than 80% battery consumption. TATA Motors submitted a bid guaranteeing 200 km range but under standard test conditions as per AIS 040, which was a deviation from the tender specifications. BEST rejected TATA Motors' bid as non-responsive. TATA Motors challenged this rejection before the High Court, which directed BEST to consider its bid. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited scope of judicial review in tender matters. The Court emphasized that tender conditions are commercial decisions and courts should not interfere unless there is arbitrariness, mala fides, or perversity. The condition requiring range in actual conditions was a legitimate commercial decision, and TATA Motors' bid was conditional and non-compliant. Allowing such a bid would violate the level playing field. The Court restored BEST's decision to reject TATA Motors' bid and allowed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Courts should not sit in appeal over tender conditions or substitute their own views unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse - The High Court exceeded its limited scope by directing BEST to consider a non-compliant bid - Held that the tender condition requiring 200 km range in actual conditions was a legitimate commercial decision and not arbitrary (Paras 20-30).
B) Tender Law - Level Playing Field - Deviation from Tender Specifications - Allowing a bidder to participate despite deviation would violate the level playing field and prejudice other bidders who complied - TATA Motors' bid was conditional and did not meet the essential requirement - Held that BEST was justified in rejecting the bid as non-responsive (Paras 31-35).
C) Tender Law - Technical Evaluation - Actual Conditions vs. Standard Test Conditions - The tender specifically required range in 'actual conditions' and excluded reference to AIS 040 standard test conditions - TATA Motors' bid based on AIS 040 was a material deviation - Held that the High Court erred in equating the two standards (Paras 36-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the tender process and directing BEST to consider TATA Motors' bid despite non-compliance with the mandatory technical specification of 200 km range in actual conditions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored BEST's decision to reject TATA Motors' bid as non-responsive.
Law Points
- Tender law
- Judicial review of tender conditions
- Scope of interference in contractual matters
- Level playing field
- Technical evaluation
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 15708 of 2022) with Civil Appeal No. 3899 of 2023 and Civil Appeal No. 3898 of 2023
TATA Motors Limited (in CA 3897/2023), EVEY Trans Pvt. Ltd. (in CA 3899/2023), Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (in CA 3898/2023)
Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking and Others (in CA 3897/2023), TATA Motors Limited and Others (in CA 3899/2023), TATA Motors Limited and Others (in CA 3898/2023)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against the Bombay High Court's order in a writ petition challenging the rejection of a bid in a tender for electric buses.
Remedy Sought
BEST and EVEY sought setting aside of the High Court's order directing BEST to consider TATA Motors' bid despite non-compliance with tender specifications.
Filing Reason
The High Court interfered with BEST's decision to reject TATA Motors' bid as non-responsive, which BEST and EVEY contended was beyond the scope of judicial review.
Previous Decisions
The Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 15548 of 2022 dated 05.07.2022 directed BEST to consider TATA Motors' bid.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the tender process and directing BEST to consider TATA Motors' bid despite non-compliance with the mandatory technical specification of 200 km range in actual conditions.
Whether the tender condition requiring 200 km range in actual conditions was arbitrary or unreasonable.
Submissions/Arguments
BEST argued that the High Court exceeded its limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and that the condition was a legitimate commercial decision.
EVEY argued that allowing TATA Motors' non-compliant bid would violate the level playing field and prejudice other bidders.
TATA Motors argued that its bid was compliant as the AIS 040 standard test conditions were equivalent to actual conditions.
Ratio Decidendi
Courts should not interfere with tender conditions or decisions unless they are arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse. The condition requiring 200 km range in actual conditions was a legitimate commercial decision, and TATA Motors' bid based on standard test conditions was a material deviation. Allowing such a bid would violate the level playing field.
Judgment Excerpts
Leave granted.
As the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are common and the challenge is also to the self-same order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 05.07.2022 in the Writ Petition (L) No. 15548 of 2022, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
Procedural History
BEST floated a tender on 26.02.2022. TATA Motors submitted a bid on 25.04.2022 with a deviation. BEST rejected the bid. TATA Motors filed Writ Petition (L) No. 15548 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, which on 05.07.2022 directed BEST to consider the bid. BEST, EVEY, and TATA Motors appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
