Case title: Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd. V. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority & Another.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4626 of 2024 (Special Leave Petition No.23319 of 2022)
Decided on: 02.04.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In November 2018, HIMUDA issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the construction of a commercial complex in Vikas Nagar, Shimla, with an estimated cost of Rs.45,05,62,074. By December 2018, Technical and Financial Bids were opened, revealing that the Appellant and Respondent No.2 were the only qualified bidders, with the Appellant being L2. Subsequently, in December 2018, a Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued in favor of Respondent No.2, leading to legal challenges. The tender process faced scrutiny due to irregularities, leading to the cancellation of the tender by Respondent No.1 in February 2021, prompting court interventions and a call for a fresh tender process to ensure transparency and fairness.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case pertained to the tender process, contractual agreements, and compliance with court orders.
The case highlighted issues related to the legality of the Letter of Intent (LOI), the cancellation of the tender, and the subsequent legal challenges.
Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of transparency, due process, and adherence to the recommendations of the enquiry committee in handling such matters.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The Appellant, Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd., contested the order issued by the High Court in response to the Civil Writ Petition filed by M/s. Vasu Constructions. They argued that the High Court’s decision was based on statements made by the counsels representing Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, without affording the Appellant a fair chance to negotiate or present their perspective in the matter. The Appellant raised concerns about the lack of opportunity to participate in the process and the potential bias in the decision-making process.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The Respondents, including HIMUDA and M/s. Vasu Constructions, advocated for the continuation of the project based on the terms of the initial tender, even after its cancellation by HIMUDA. They presented their case to the High Court, seeking approval to proceed without involving the other parties who were part of the original tender process. Their contention focused on the acceptance of their proposals and the exclusion of other participants, emphasizing the urgency and public interest in advancing the project.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The judgment delves into the intricacies of the tender process and the subsequent legal proceedings. The Court’s decision was a result of a thorough analysis of the actions of the respondents, particularly HIMUDA and M/s. Vasu Constructions, in the tender process. The Court found evidence of malafide intentions, collusion, and irregularities in the process, leading to the cancellation of the tender.
The Judgment underscored the importance of upholding transparency, accountability, and fairness in tender processes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd. Against the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the High Court. The Court found that HIMUDA, despite being a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, had acted malafide and colluded with M/s. Vasu Constructions. The judgment set aside the High Court’s order, allowed the appeal with costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to be deposited by HIMUDA, and directed the Registry to register separate proceedings to ensure compliance with the recommendations and initiate appropriate actions against the erring officials.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
