# M/s AM Infratech Proprietorship Firm, New Delhi v. DFCCIL & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 1060
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-12
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 22299 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-am-infratech-proprietorship-firm-new-delhi-v-dfccil-ors-52383
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Public Law - Rejection of Tender -
Interpretation of tender document - Scope
of
writ
jurisdiction
with
regard
to
interpretation of the tender documents
and interference by the Court is required
to be minimal and only when this Court
finds an extremely arbitrary action or a
malafide action, the Court would interfere.
(Para 6)

In the present case, Hon'ble Court did not find
any malafide intention by the authorities.
Furthermore, the interpretation being taken by
the respondent authorities appeared to be a
reasonable one, and therefore, this Court did
not replace the said interpretation with its own
opinion. (Para 7) (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Rhetoric
Technologies
Pvt.
Ltd.
Through
Authorized Representative anr. Vs State of U.P.
8 All. M/s AM Infratech Proprietorship Firm, New Delhi Vs. DFCCIL & Ors.
1061
Through Principal Secretary Transport Sectt. &
ors., 2023 SCC OnLine All 50 (Para 5)

Present
petition
challenges
order
of
rejection
of
technical
bid,
dated
12.06.2024 and order rejecting appeal
against the rejection, dated 25.07.2024.

## Text

1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
agreement. Moreover, there is no provision
in the allotment letter for charging interest
if the default is on UPSIDA's part.

42. A party cannot be permitted to
"blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or
"approbate and reprobate" at the same time.
This rule is applied to do equity, however,
it must not be applied in a manner as to
violate the principles of right and good
conscience. Therefore, UPSIDA cannot
take unjust benefit from its own delay and
must rectify the interest rate accordingly.

43. Regarding the interest on the
80%
premium
amount
paid
by
the
petitioner, this matter is currently pending
before the RERA Appellate Authority. The
petitioner is entitled to pursue the issue for
interest or damages for the period during
which the payment was made, and the
property could not be enjoyed by her. This
aspect remains open for adjudication, and
we are not addressing it in this judgement.

DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT

44. In view of the aforementioned
considerations, it is evident that the
respondents cannot capitalize on their own
defaults to the detriment of the petitioner.
The established legal principle that no party
should get benefit for their own wrong
applies in the present case. Accordingly,
respondent No.3, UPSIDA, is directed to
correct the unjust imposition of interest and
to comply with appropriate legal standards.
They may only charge interest @ 6% on
the
outstanding
amount.
Upon
the
petitioner paying the outstanding amount
along with 6% interest rate for the period
from the date of allotment of plot,
respondent no.3 is obligated to execute the
lease
deed
and
complete
all
other
formalities within 2 weeks thereafter.
45. With the above direction, the
instant writ petition is disposed of.

46. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1060
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ - C No. 22299 of 2024

M/s AM Infratech Proprietorship Firm,
New Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
DFCCIL & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manu Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, Sri Ashish Mishra

A. Public Law - Rejection of Tender -
Interpretation of tender document - Scope
of
writ
jurisdiction
with
regard
to
interpretation of the tender documents
and interference by the Court is required
to be minimal and only when this Court
finds an extremely arbitrary action or a
malafide action, the Court would interfere.
(Para 6)

In the present case, Hon'ble Court did not find
any malafide intention by the authorities.
Furthermore, the interpretation being taken by
the respondent authorities appeared to be a
reasonable one, and therefore, this Court did
not replace the said interpretation with its own
opinion. (Para 7) (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Rhetoric
Technologies
Pvt.
Ltd.
Through
Authorized Representative anr. Vs State of U.P.
8 All. M/s AM Infratech Proprietorship Firm, New Delhi Vs. DFCCIL & Ors.
1061
Through Principal Secretary Transport Sectt. &
ors., 2023 SCC OnLine All 50 (Para 5)

Present
petition
challenges
order
of
rejection
of
technical
bid,
dated
12.06.2024 and order rejecting appeal
against the rejection, dated 25.07.2024.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ashish
Mishra on behalf of respondent No. 3 is
taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Manu Khare
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri
Vaibhav Tripathi on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ashish Mishra, on
behalf of respondent No. 3.

3. This is an application under
Article 226 of Constitution of India,
wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by
rejection of its technical bid by the
respondents vide order dated June 12,
2024. Subsequent to filing of the writ
petition, the petitioner was also provided
with a letter dated July 25, 2024 whereby
the appeal against the rejection of its tender
was also rejected. The relevant part of the
order is delineated below:

 "As per clause 1.3.12 (page no.
24 of 344) of tender document,

Right of DFCCIL to Deal with
Tenders:- 1.3.12(b): "The authority for the
acceptance of the tender will rest with the
DFCCIL. It shall not be obligatory on the
said authority to accept the lowest tender or
any other tender and no tenderer(s) shall
demand any explanation for the cause of
rejection this/their tender nor the DFCCIL
undertake to assign reasons for declining to
consider or reject any particular tender or
tenders".
 In the view of above, DFCCIL is
not bound to give detailed explanation
about rejection of tenderers. However,
considering importance of your firm and
better future prospect of your firm,
sincerity and better transparency, your
satisfaction, unersigned would like to
inform that, your offer did not had offer
letter complete i.e. form-1 as per para
1.3.2(b)
nor
having
any
supporting
document regarding experience to carryout
electrical work in terms of clause 1.5.2 of
tender document.

Hence, your offer was not found
in order as per tender conditions for above
floated tender & accordingly your offer
was rejected by DFCCIL. Your EMD is
going to returned shortly.

This is for kind information
please."

4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that as per Clause 1.5.2 of
the tender documents, it was required only
to provide the name of the Associate
Electrical Contractor and was not required
to
provide
the
legally
enforceable
agreement duly signed by the Associate
Electrical Contractor nor was it required to
provide the experience of the Associate
Electrical Contractor at the time of
submission of the same. This argument has
been negated by counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent authorities who
submit that by a corrigendum issued on
March 28, 2024 certain queries of the
bidders were answered by the respondents.
The relevant extract of the same is provided
below:

Query of Bidder

DFCCIL reply

..................

...................
...............
......
...
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Please
clarify:
i.
Whether
MOU with
associated
other
contractor's
(Lift/AC/FI
RE) is to
submitted
with
bidding
documents
or at the
time of start
of relevant
work.
...............
...
 (i)
All
instruction
already
given in the
Bid
document
under
Article
3,
obligations
of
the
contractors
and
all
required
documents
to
be
submitted
with bidding
documents
only.

5.

Counsel
on
behalf
of
respondents has also relied upon the
judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad
High Court in Rhetoric Technologies Pvt.
Ltd. Through Authorised Representative
and another vs. State of U.P. Through
Principal Secretary Transport Sectt. and
others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 50, to submit
that interpretation of the bid document and
corrigendum issued therein would have to
be as per the author of the bid documents
and the courts are not to interpret the same
under normal circumstances.

6. After hearing the counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties and
perusing the relevant documents, we are of
the view that scope of writ jurisdiction with
regard to interpretation of the tender
documents and interference by the Court is
required to be minimal and only when this
Court finds an extremely arbitrary action or
a malafide action, the Court would
interfere. Paragraphs No. 18 and 26 of
judgement in Rhetoric Technologies Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) are delineated below:

"18. In Municipal Corporation
Ujjain and Another V. B.V.G. India Ltd
and others, 2018 5 SCC 462, the Supreme
Court had observed that the High Court
should not ordinarily interfere with the
judgement of expert consultants on the
issue of technical qualifications of a bidder
when the consultant had taken into
consideration various factors including
basis of non-performance of the bidder. It
is not open to the Court to independently
evaluate technical bids and financial bids
of the parties as an Appellate Authority for
coming to its own conclusion in as much as
unless thresholds of malafide intention to
favour someone or bias, arbitrariness,
irrationality or perversity are met. The
Court observed that if the decision is taken
purely in public interest, the Courts
ordinarily
should
exercise
judicial
restraint.

* * *
 * * *

26. The learned Standing Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
State
Respondents has placed reliance upon
judgement rendered by the Supreme Court
in N.G. Projects Ltd versus Vinod Kumar
Jain and others 2022 (6) SCC 127; and
paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 23 thereof. The
Supreme Court observed that the owner or
the employer of a project, having authored
the tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements
and interpret its documents. With regard to
the interpretation of terms of the contract
and the question as to whether a term of the
contract is essential or not is to be viewed
from the perspective of the employer and
by the employer. The Courts should not use
a magnifying glass while scanning the
8 All. Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1063
tenders and make every small mistake
appear like a big blunder. In fact, the
Courts must give "fair play in the joints" to
the
Government
and
Public
Sector
Undertakings in matters of contract. The
Courts must also not interfere where such
interference would cause unnecessary loss
to
the
public
exchequer
and
while
entertaining
the
writ
petition
and/or
granting the stay which may ultimately
delay the execution of public projects, it
must be remembered that it might seriously
impede the execution of the projects and
disable
the
State
and
or
its
agencies/instrumentalities from discharging
their Constitutional and legal obligation
towards the citizens. It was observed by the
Supreme Court that the High Court should
be extremely careful and circumspect in
exercise of the discretion while entertaining
such petitions and/or while granting stay in
such matters. The Writ Court should refrain
itself from imposing its decision over the
decision of the employer as to whether or
not to accept the bid of a tender. The Court
does not have the expertise to examine the
terms and conditions of the present
economic activities of the State and this
limitation should be kept in view. The
Courts should be even more reluctant in
interfering with the contracts involving
technical issues as there is a requirement of
the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon
such issues. The Court should only
examine as to whether the decision making
process is after complying with the
procedure contemplated by the tender
conditions. If the Court finds that there is a
total arbitrariness or that the tender has
been granted in a malafide manner, the
Court should relegate the parties to seek
damages for the wrongful exclusion rather
than to injunct the execution of the
contract. The injunction or interference in
the tender leads to additional cost on the
State and is also against public interest.
Any contract of public service should not
be interfered with lightly and in any case,
there should not be any interim order
derailing the entire process of the services
meant for the larger public good."

7. In the present case, we are unable
to assist the petitioner as we do not find any
malafide intention by the authorities.
Further more, the interpretation being taken
by the respondent authorities appears to be
a reasonable one, and therefore, this Court
would not replace the said interpretation
with its own opinion.

8. In view of above, we do not find
any reason to interfere in the orders passed
by the Authorities.

9. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1063
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ - C No. 22679 of 2013

Vinod Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. Anita Tripathi, Miss Bushra Maryam,
Ms. Sufia Saba

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Seema Agarwal

A. Service Law - Jurisdiction - Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)(d) r/w
2(a) - Court or Tribunal would have the
jurisdiction if the parties resided within its