:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.824 OF 2008 M/s.Alankar Transport Corporation .. Petitioner. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani a/w Manjiri Parasnis i/b Girish Godbole for the petitioner. Mr.S.U.Kamdar i/b S.P.Bharati for respondent no.1. Mr.H.V.Mehta a/w M.S.Bhardwaj for respondent no.2. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. (Vacation Court) (Vacation Court) (Vacation Court) P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . In response to a notice inviting tenders for the supply of 55 buses over a period of three years to the 1st respondent, the petitioner had submitted a bid. The conditions of the tender provided financial criteria which every bidder was required to establish. One of the criteria is that the net worth of the bidder was to be positive. Moreover, it was also stipulated that for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with specific parameters bidders would have to furnish a copy of the audited annual reports of the previous two financial years. 2. In the affidavit in reply which has been filed by the 1st respondent it has been stated that upon the documents that were submitted by the petitioner, it was evident that the net worth of the petitioner was negative on the basis of the audited balance sheet of two years. Consequently, the bid submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected. :2: :2: :2: Exhibit-B to the affidavit in reply is an annexure which contains financial details pertaining to the petitioner. It is evident from this document that both for the current year and for the preceeding year, the petitioner had reported a negative net worth. Therefore, on the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioner it was evident that the requirement of having a positive net worth was not satisfied. 3. The submissions of the petitioner, however, are twofold. The first submission is that the net worth was negative because the petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying vehicles and depreciation is claimed for the purpose of availing of the benefits of the Income Tax Act. This in our view could not be an answer for the simple reason that the tender conditions require a positive net worth. Whatever be the reason, the fact remains that the net worth of the petitioner was negative and did not fulfill the required stipulations. This was a condition which was uniformly applied to all bidders. If the petitioner failed to fulfill the required stipulations there cannot be any infirmity in the decision to reject the bid. The second submission is that in the case of eight other bidders the 1st respondent sought post bid clarifications and that the same benefit ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent has placed on the :3: :3: :3: record a circular dated 25th February, 2005 issued by the 1st respondent which sets out the policy of the 1st respondent as regards seeking confirmations after opening of bids. The policy guidelines stipulate that a bidder can be asked to furnish supporting documents even after opening of bids but these documents shall not be of a date later than the date of submission of bids. In the present case, there was no question of seeking a clarification of the bid because on the strength of the documents submitted by the petitioner itself it was found that the bid did not fulfill the required stipulations. Under these circumstances the rejection of the bid cannot be held to be in error. It is now a well settled principle of law that in dealing with the award of contracts by a public authority or a body which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for the decision of the competent authority. Essentially, the court has to consider whether there is any element of arbitrariness that would be contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The rejection of the bid was for valid reasons which cannot be held to be arbitrary. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. :4: :4: :4: (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (K.U.Chandiwal, J.)