LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED v. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( MMRDA)
Tender Process - Disclosure of Bid Evaluation and the Right to Challenge: Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. MMRDA - High Court Dismisses Petition, Citing ITB Clauses and Public Interest.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8250-DB
Decision Date: 20-05-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India; Article 12 of the Constitution of India; Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974; Principles of Natural Justice; Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Guidelines; Public Works Department (PWD) Guidelines; Law of Tenders/Contract Law
- Facts: Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from opening the financial bids (Cover-II) for a Road Tunnel Project without first notifying L&T of the outcome of its technical bid. L&T argued that MMRDA's actions violated principles of natural justice and the terms of the tender documents (Instructions to Bidders or "ITB"). MMRDA had issued a notice inviting tenders for the project, and L&T submitted its technical bid on December 13, 2024. L&T learned that MMRDA had sent letters to some bidders to attend the financial bid opening but did not send one to L&T.
- Procedural Posture: L&T filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking urgent restraining orders against MMRDA.
- Issue: Is MMRDA justified in proceeding to open the financial bids without first declaring the Petitioner's technical bid as unresponsive, and is such conduct contrary to the terms of the tender and principles of natural justice?
- Holding: No, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding that MMRDA's conduct was not contrary to the terms of the tender, considering the clauses of the ITB and the assurances given by the Solicitor General.
- Reasoning: The Court found that L&T had suppressed material clauses (28.1 and 42.5) of the ITB, which stated that information relating to the evaluation of bids would not be disclosed until the notification of the award. The Court noted that L&T, having accepted these clauses, could not claim a right contrary to the express terms of the tender. The Court also considered the Solicitor General's assurance that MMRDA would provide reasons for the rejection of the technical bid as per clause 42.5 of the ITB and that L&T could challenge the rejection after the reasons were provided. The Court also emphasized that the project was a mega-infrastructure project of significant public importance, and any delay would adversely impact its execution. The Court held that L&T's rights would remain intact to challenge the rejection of the technical bid and the award of the contract. The interim stay on opening the financial bids was discontinued, and the MMRDA was directed to preserve the price bids for two weeks from the date of communication to the Petitioner.
🔒 For Members Only