Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs Union of India And Anr. Etc. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner firm challenging the rejection of its technical bids for two works at Kochi valued at Rs. 53 crores and Rs. 72 crores. The petitioner’s technical bids were rejected by the tendering authorities, and its appeals were also dismissed. Before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner contended that no reasons were given for rejection and that adverse remarks against its sister concern could not be relied upon. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the appellate order was non-speaking and that adverse remarks against the sister company could not be used against the petitioner. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision, emphasizing limited judicial interference in contractual matters.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Kerala HC Quashed Technical Bid Rejection as Sister Concern’s Record Wrongly Applied
The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles governing judicial review in tender matters, holding that courts must exercise restraint and interfere only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, bias, irrationality, or perversity. The Court clarified that a writ petition challenging rejection of a technical bid was maintainable even without impleading all tenderers at that stage. It further held that if adverse material relating to a sister concern is used against a bidder, the bidder is entitled to challenge its correctness. However, since all partners of the petitioner firm were directors of the sister company, they were “related firms” under Clause 1.19 of the Manual of Contracts, 2007, and adverse remarks in the Work Load Return (WLR) of the sister company could be considered.
