LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED v. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA)
Tender Process: Upholding Tender Terms Allowing Financial Bid Opening Before Technical Bid Result Disclosure, While Preserving Bidder's Right to Challenge Post-Award.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8210-DB
Decision Date: 20-05-2025
List of Laws
Writ Petition; Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974; Constitution of India, Article 12; Principles of Natural Justice; Tender Law; Instruction to Bidders (ITB); Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Guidelines; Public Works Department (PWD) Guidelines
- Facts: Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T), a company incorporated in India, filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from opening the financial bids (Cover-II) for an Elevated Road Project without first notifying L&T about the outcome of their technical bid. L&T contended that MMRDA's actions violated principles of natural justice and fair tender process.
- Procedural Posture: L&T filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the actions of MMRDA in proceeding with the tender process without informing L&T of the outcome of their technical bid. The High Court was hearing the writ petition in its original civil jurisdiction.
- Issue: Is MMRDA justified in proceeding to open the financial bids for the Elevated Road Project without first declaring L&T's technical bid as unresponsive, and is this contrary to the terms of the tender, principles of natural justice, and fair tender process?
- Holding: No, MMRDA is not acting contrary to the terms of the tender by proceeding to open financial bids without first informing L&T of the outcome of its technical bid. The writ petition is dismissed.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on Clause 11.3 of the Instruction to Bidders (ITB), which states that "The Employer will not disclose information relating to the evaluation of e-Tender Submissions and recommendation of Contract award to bidders or any other persons not officially concerned with the Tender process until the Employer communicates information on Contract award to all bidders". The Court found that L&T had suppressed this material fact in its petition. The Court also noted that the Solicitor General clarified that L&T would be furnished with reasons for rejection of its technical bid and that all rights and contentions of L&T would remain open, including challenging the rejection and the award of the tender. The Court also considered the public importance of the mega-infrastructure project and the potential for delay if the tender process was interfered with at this stage. While the court noted that the ITB may be "opaque" and give rise to arbitrary action, L&T had accepted the terms by participating in the process.
🔒 For Members Only