Rejection of Technical bids of Tenders for Navi Mumbai Airport Infrastructure Works – Illegal

The Joint Venture of the Petitioner and Azerbaijan Company EVRASCON had submitted their tenders for two infrastructure works in the Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area.

The technical bids of JV were rejected by the Tender Committee on 8.10.2024 for five reasons as mentioned in para 10 of the judgment.

HELD that the first ground of rejection of technical bids of JV was that the lead partner alone has signed the integrity pact, and the foreign partner has not signed the same.  However, the foreign partner has executed Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner.  The petitioner in the capacity of PoA of foreign partner had signed the integrity pack and same is permitted by the tender conditions 3(D)(I) and (s) of the tenders.  The decision of the CIDCO in rejecting the technical bid of the JV is, therefore, arbitrary and irrational.

The second ground of rejection of technical bids of the JV – petitioner was that the mandatory eligibility documents have not been signed and stamped cannot be sustained.  However, it is seen that the documents are digitally signed under Section 3 of the IT Act, 2000.  Moreover, the documents with digital signatures of other bids were accepted by the CIDCO.  In case of any doubt, the CIDO could have required the JV to produce the original documents as required in Note 1 of the Notes.

HELD  as per the Hague Apostille Convention, 1961 and the Office Memorandum dated 18.11.2020 of the Ministry of External Affairs, no attestation or legalization of an apostilled document is required in India since it is a Member of the said Convention.   Therefore, the third ground for technical bids rejection was that the documents have not been certified by both the Embassy is not legal.   However, it is seen that the JV submitted English translated documents and apostille certificate of the origin country.

HELD that the fifth ground of rejection of JV’s bid that its foreign partner is not registered under the GST Act is not legal since the JV had furnished an undertaking as required under Clause 1(Iv) of the tender that the bidder is not required to be registered under GST Act and reasons for such non-registration.

Judgment dated 6.5.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.13976 of 2024 of Thakur Infraprojects Pvt Ltd  Vs.   State of Maharashtra and others