A writ petition was filed by Karanjawala & Co on behalf of JBM Ecolife Mobility Private Ltd (JBM Ecolife) in the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of the latter’s bid for the tender floated by Convergence Energy Services Ltd (CESL) for procurement, operation and maintenance of 5450 Electric buses and 135 double-decker electric buses and allied electric and civil infrastructure in Gross Cost Contract through single-stage two-envelope bidding. The petition was dismissed today after being heard at length by Justice Yashwant Varma.

JBM Ecolife in the petition argued that the rejection of its bid on account of debarment of a sister concern i.e. JBM Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd was done without following the principles of natural justice and statutory norms and that CESL could not have rejected its bid on account of another company’s debarment.

The petitioner sought the setting aside of the decision of rejection of its bid and an order allowing it to participate in the tender process. Tata Motors Ltd was the preferred bidder (L-1) in the tender and it was the case of JBM Ecolife that its bid was superior to that of Tata Motors Ltd in several categories on account of the lower price quoted by it.

Senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Rajiv Nayyar appeared on behalf of the petitioner, JBM Ecolife. Meanwhile, the Union of India and CESL have been made the respondents in the case. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and advocates Apoorv Kurup and Manish Mohan are representing the state in the case. Meanwhile, senior advocate Parag Tripathi represented the second respondent, CESL.

The reliefs sought in the writ petition were opposed by the impleader, Tata Motors Ltd, on the ground that the petitioner, JBM Ecolife has failed to make Tata Motors Ltd a party in the writ petition despite it being a necessary party; that scope of judicial scrutiny in tender matters is limited; that there is no obligation to award the contract to the lowest bidder when tender conditions have not been complied with; and that any judicial interference in the tender process would cause a delay in the process, lead to loss to the public exchequer and be against the public interest.