New Delhi, May 10 (IANS): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition filed by JBM Ecolife Mobility Private Ltd challenging the rejection of its bid for the tender floated by Convergence Energy Services Ltd (CESL).
The bid was for procurement, operation, and maintenance of 5,450 Electric buses and 135 double-decker electric buses and allied electric and civil infrastructure in Gross Cost Contract through single-stage two-envelope bidding.
Justice Yashwant Varma dismissed the plea after a detailed hearing.
The petitioner, JBM Ecolife urged that the rejection of its bid on account of debarment of a sister concern, i.e., JBM Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd was done without following the principles of natural justice and statutory norms and that CESL could not have rejected its bid on account of another company's debarment, thereby seeking setting aside of the decision of rejection of its bid and an order allowing it to participate in the tender process.
Tata Motors Ltd was the preferred bidder (L-1) in the tender and it was the case of JBM Ecolife that its bid was superior to that of Tata Motors Ltd in several categories on account of the lower price quoted by it.
Senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Rajiv Nayyar appeared on behalf of the petitioner, JBM Ecolife.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma along with Adv Apoorv Kurup and Adv Manish Mohan appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1 (Union of India).
Senior advocate Parag Tripathi appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2 (CESL).
Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Jain, along with Nandini Gore, Senior Partner, Karanjawala & Co, along with Aditi Bhatt, Sarthak Gaur, and Yash Dubey appeared on the behalf of Tata Motors Ltd, the impleader in the writ petition.
The reliefs sought in the writ petition were opposed by Tata Motors Ltd on the ground that the petitioner, JBM Ecolife has failed to make Tata Motors Ltd a party in the writ petition despite it being a necessary party; that scope of judicial scrutiny in tender matters is limited; that there is no obligation to award the contract to the lowest bidder when tender conditions have not been complied with; and that any judicial interference in the tender process would cause a delay in the process, lead to loss to the public exchequer and be against the public interest.