The Calcutta High Court held that the authority inviting the tender is best suited to determine the terms and conditions of the tender, including the eligibility criteria, based on its own functional and technical requirements. It is not within the domain of this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to either prescribe or alter the tender conditions, unless such conditions are found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by mala fides.
The factual matrix of the case is that an e-tender was issued and subsequently cancelled unilaterally by the Respondents. Thereafter, the Respondents issued a fresh NIT for the same work, but with substantial changes in the tender conditions. Therefore, the present writ petition seeking quashing of the notice of cancellation of the subsequent Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that changes made in the fresh NIT were made to tailor the tender conditions in favour of select bidders and such actions of the Respondents lack transparency and violate the principles of fairness, thus vitiating the integrity of the tendering process. Whereas, the counsel for the Respondent submitted that changes made in the fresh NIT were made in order to ensure fairness and similarity. furthermore, it was submitted that the Petitioner, having participated in the subsequent tender process, cannot now claim to have suffered any prejudice.
The Court began by reaffirming a well-settled principle, judicial review in tender and contract matters is inherently limited. It emphasized that such decisions often rest on nuanced administrative discretion and domain-specific technical considerations, which courts are not ideally equipped to second-guess. Interference by constitutional courts, particularly under Article 226, is warranted only in rare instances where the process is tainted by illegality, mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
In the present case, the Court noted that the Petitioner’s claim, that the revised tender conditions were seemingly tailor-made to favour a particular bidder, lacked specificity and supporting evidence. No credible material had been placed on record to demonstrate any targeted favoritism or procedural unfairness.
Crucially, the Court underscored that “the authority inviting the tender is best positioned to determine its terms and conditions, including eligibility norms, based on its functional and technical needs.” The Court made it clear that it cannot, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, prescribe or modify such criteria unless they are palpably arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide.
Finding no such infirmity in the challenged tender process, and with the allegations remaining vague and unsubstantiated, the Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and did not warrant interference.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ashish Kishore Roy V. State of West Bengal & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gaurang Kanth
Case No.: W. P. A. 1182 OF 2025
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Arijit Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Sudipa Ghosh, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Joyjit Choudhury, ld. A.A.G. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :