Public procurement administration
Core Principles of Public Procurement Administration
Transparency
Fair and equal treatment
Competition
Accountability
Efficiency and value for money
Legal compliance
Key Components of Procurement Administration
Procurement planning and budgeting
Tendering and bidding procedures
Evaluation and award
Contract management
Dispute resolution
Audit and oversight
Case Law Analysis in Public Procurement
Here are five landmark cases that illustrate various aspects of public procurement law:
1. Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
Facts:
The Indian Government invited tenders for providing mobile telephone services. Tata Cellular’s bid was rejected without clear reasoning, and another party was selected. Tata challenged the decision under Article 226.
Legal Issue:
Whether the government's decision in public procurement is subject to judicial review.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and transparency apply to government contracts. The Court emphasized that:
Though courts do not normally interfere with administrative decisions, judicial review is permissible if the decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, or lacks transparency.
Public procurement must serve public interest and not be misused for private gains.
Significance:
This case laid down the scope of judicial review in public procurement and emphasized the need for fair procedures.
2. Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492
Facts:
A public authority awarded a construction contract to Raunaq International. Another bidder challenged the award, alleging procedural irregularities and bias.
Legal Issue:
Whether courts should interfere in the awarding of public contracts due to alleged procedural lapses.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
Courts must exercise restraint in interfering with tender processes.
Minor procedural lapses do not justify judicial intervention unless they lead to gross unfairness or mala fides.
Public interest must be prioritized over private interest of a losing bidder.
Significance:
This case reinforced the principle of limited judicial interference and highlighted that public interest trumps private losses in procurement decisions.
3. Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517
Facts:
Jagdish Mandal, a bidder, challenged the award of a government contract to another party, claiming the bid evaluation was unfair.
Legal Issue:
What is the scope of judicial review in contractual matters involving tenders?
Judgment:
The Court held that:
Judicial review is not warranted unless:
The process is malicious,
There is a violation of statutory provisions,
Or it leads to public injury.
The court should not second-guess technical evaluations unless there is clear bias or arbitrariness.
Significance:
Established clear guidelines on when courts can interfere, discouraging routine challenges to procurement decisions.
4. Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216
Facts:
A supplier challenged the pre-qualification criteria set by the government in a tender process, claiming they were arbitrary and exclusionary.
Legal Issue:
Can the court interfere with the eligibility criteria set by the tendering authority?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that:
The authority issuing the tender has the right to set reasonable eligibility conditions.
Judicial review is limited to checking if such criteria are arbitrary, discriminatory, or irrational.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed the concept of "freedom to contract" in procurement while ensuring it is not unfair or exclusionary.
5. Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
Reliance challenged the award of a major infrastructure project, alleging that the award criteria were modified during evaluation.
Legal Issue:
Is it lawful for the public authority to change evaluation parameters after submission of bids?
Judgment:
The Court held that:
Changing criteria midway through the tender process violates transparency and fairness.
Public procurement must follow pre-declared procedures.
Significance:
Clarified that post-bid manipulation or deviation from published rules is not acceptable.
Key Takeaways from the Cases
| Principle | Cases Highlighting It | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Tata Cellular, Jagdish Mandal | Courts can intervene if the process is unfair, arbitrary, or discriminatory. |
| Public Interest Priority | Raunaq International | Public interest outweighs individual grievances. |
| Fairness and Transparency | Reliance Energy, Tata Cellular | Procedures must be clear, disclosed, and consistently applied. |
| Freedom to Set Criteria | Michigan Rubber | Procuring agencies can set eligibility terms if not arbitrary. |
| Restraint in Interference | Jagdish Mandal, Raunaq | Courts should not act as appellate bodies in technical evaluations. |
Conclusion
Public procurement administration lies at the intersection of administrative law, contract law, and constitutional principles. The judiciary has consistently emphasized that government procurement must be open, fair, and governed by public interest. While courts recognize the discretion of public bodies, they also act as a check against maladministration, favoritism, and corruption.
RELATED Blog
0 comments