Key Ruling
The Gauhati High Court has held that mere non-disclosure of the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method in a tender document does not, by itself, establish malafides, favouritism or corruption.
Court’s Core Findings
-
Allegations of malafides cannot be sustained where the decision to adopt QCBS was taken well before issuance of the tender, at a time when the identity of bidders was unknown.
-
Non-disclosure amounts to a procedural irregularity, not an illegality warranting cancellation of the contract.
-
Judicial review in tender matters is limited, especially after work has commenced.
Bench Observation
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that:
“Mere non-disclosure of the QCBS method cannot give rise to allegations of malafides, favouritism or corruption when the evaluation framework was finalised months before the tender was issued.”
Public Interest Consideration
The Court noted that:
-
The project was under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) — a centrally funded scheme.
-
Setting aside the contract at this stage would:
-
Cause irreversible harm to public interest
-
Risk lapsing of Central funds
-
Delay completion of infrastructure works
-
“Disproportionate relief must be avoided where public interest far outweighs procedural grievance,” the Court said.
Background Of The Dispute
-
The Nagaland Government issued a tender for road construction under PMGSY-III.
-
M/s Vertex Construction alleged:
-
QCBS method was used without disclosure in the NIT/SBD
-
Despite being L-1, it lost the contract
-
-
The Single Judge rejected the challenge, holding:
-
The authority can reject L-1 bids for valid reasons
-
QCBS criteria had been decided 14 months prior to the tender
-
There was no hidden agenda or manipulation
-
Division Bench Verdict
Upholding the Single Judge’s decision, the High Court:
-
Dismissed the writ appeal
-
Declined to interfere with the awarded contract
-
However, recorded disapproval of the authority’s failure to:
-
Upload tender committee minutes
-
Inform bidders upfront about QCBS criteria
-
Prospective Direction
While refusing to cancel the contract, the Court cautioned that:
Future tenders must clearly disclose evaluation methodology, including adoption of QCBS, to ensure fairness and transparency.
Key Takeaways
-
⚖️ Non-disclosure ≠ Malafides (by itself)
-
📑 QCBS decided in advance weakens bias allegations
-
🏗️ Public interest & project progress outweigh procedural lapses
-
🔍 Transparency required in future tenders
