The Allahabad High Court in its recent judgment emphasized that it would not interfere in tender matters unless the decision-making process was found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or against public interest. The High Court noted that a Court's role is to ensure that the decision-making process adheres to the outlined procedure and is fair and reasonable.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the petitioner sought to challenge the tender proceedings related to the expansion and beautification of Ahraura Madihan Lalganj Road, a State Highway in Mirzapur. The petitioner raised concerns about the responsiveness of their bid, alleged malafide actions, and claimed that documents were deleted from the online tender platform.
Contentions of the Parties:
The Petitioner initially had their technical bid declared as "responsive" but faced objections from other bidders regarding document authenticity. The Tender Evaluating Committee subsequently deemed the petitioner's bid "non-responsive" due to discrepancies in their submitted invoices. The petitioner alleged malafide actions and document deletion, but the State Level Committee declared them "responsive" on one count while leaving eleven counts "non-responsive." The contract was awarded to another bidder, leading the petitioner to claim arbitrary and unfair proceedings. The respondents defended their decision, asserting the fairness and transparency of the process.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court reviewed the contentions raised by both parties and emphasized that tender matters are generally not amenable to judicial review unless the decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or against public interest. The Court's role is not to scrutinize the terms of tender conditions but to ensure that the decision-making process is fair, reasonable, and complies with the procedure outlined in the tender conditions.
The High Court stated that the Supreme Court in numerous decisions has established clear guidelines regarding the limited circumstances in which the High Court should intervene in tender-related matters. Such intervention is warranted only when there is clear evidence of malafide intent, and when the state's decision is unreasonably arbitrary. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has established that the terms outlined in a tender invitation are generally not subject to judicial scrutiny, as the violation of these terms falls within the purview of contractual obligations.
In this case, the High Court found that the petitioner failed to establish arbitrariness, malafide, or any perversity in the decision-making process. The petitioner's bid was declared "non-responsive" on multiple counts, and even after a review, it remained "non-responsive" on eleven counts. The Court concluded that the State's actions were not arbitrary, and the allegations made by the petitioner were baseless.
The Decision of the Court:
The High Court reaffirmed that tender proceedings are generally not subject to judicial review unless there is clear arbitrariness or mala fide intent. In this case, as there was no evidence to suggest arbitrariness or mala fide actions by the State authorities, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran vs. State Of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar
Case No.: Writ No. - 15519 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Abhinav Gaur and Sanjay Dwivedi
Advocate for the Respondent: J.P. Singh, Pushkar Mehrotra, and V.K. Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
