Gujarat High Court
Milan Road Buildtech Llp vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9860 of 2025
==========================================================
MILAN ROAD BUILDTECH LLP
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P M BUCH(7383) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR G H VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI,
AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present writ petition has been filed for
the following relief:
"19(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and
setting aside the disqualification of the
Petitioner's technical bid for the work of "Widening
and Strengthening of Nenpur Haldarvas Bav-Muvada Road
KM 0/000 to 23/000 District - Kheda" (Tender ID No.
178244) communicated to the Petitioner vide Impugned
Email dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1);"
2. The petitioner-Milan Road Builtech LLP
participated in the Tender floated by the
respondent-authorities dated 23.04.2025 for
inviting Bids for undertaking the project of
"Widening and Strengthening of Nenpur Haldarvas
Bav-Muvada Road, KM 0/000 to 23/400, (District
Kheda). The download of the Bid Documents started
on 23.04.2025. The petitioner-Company submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
its Bid on 23.05.2025 and the last date of
submission of Bid was 23.05.2025. Bid opening day
was fixed at 29.05.2025.
3. The petitioner-Company was declared
unsuccessful in a Technical Bid and thereafter,
he filed a representation dated 05.07.2025
seeking details from the respondent-authorities
and accordingly, the respondent-authorities vide
communication dated 08.07.2025, informed the
petitioner-Company that it is declared
unsuccessful during evaluation namely, pre-
qualification stage (Technical Bid) in view of
pre-qualification criteria stipulated in Point
No.3(e)(3) of the Government Resolution dated
20.06.2020. Unquestionably, the said resolution
was a part of the Tender Bid Document.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Buch appearing for the
petitioner-Company has submitted that after the
last date for submission of Bid Document i.e.
23.05.2025, the petitioner-Company received a
communication from the respondent-authorities
asking clarification of qualification of the Bid
Document submitted by it. He has submitted that
accordingly, the documents, as mentioned in the
communication dated 20.06.2025, were submitted by
the petitioner-Company, which would show that
they have undertaken similar work in District
Thane, State of Maharashtra.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
5. While inviting attention of this Court to the
various documents from page No.143 onwards of the
writ petition, learned advocate Mr.Buch has
submitted that all the documents, which are
mentioned in Point No.3(e)(3) of the Government
Resolution dated 20.06.2020, are satisfied. He
has submitted that before two years also, the
petitioner-Company had participated in the Tender
floated by the very same respondent-authorities
and was declared successful. Thus, it is urged
that the contract accorded to the respondent
No.4-Dev Constructions, may be rescinded and
instead declare the petitioner-Company as
successful in the Technical Bid.
6. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned
Government Pleader Mr.Virk, on behalf of the
respondent-authorities, has submitted that the
petitioner-Company cannot take shelter under the
communication dated 20.06.2025. It is submitted
that the clarification was necessitated in view
of the declaration of the petitioner-Company as
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC)
Prime Contractor however, on the verification of
the documents, when it was found that it was not
the EPC Prime Contractor but the very documents
reveal that Concessionaire is one Shenwa
Infrastructure Private Ltd., the clarification
was sought. He has invited attention of this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Court to the Concession Agreement between the
Principal Secretary, Public Works Department,
Government of Maharashtra with Shenwa
Infrastructure Private Ltd., which further refers
to Anish Infracon India Private Ltd., which has
to perform the obligation and exercise the rights
to enter into Concession Agreement pursuant to
the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) of undertaking the
project.
7. It is submitted by the learned Government
Pleader that the petitioner-Company would fall in
the third step, who has been a further
Concessionaire of Shenva Infrastructure Private
Ltd. It is submitted that thus, in order to see
that the information/documents, which were
supplied by the petitioner-Company was correct, a
clarification was sought on 20.05.2025. He has
also invited attention of this Court to the
financial stage, which is already closed at 12
O'clock on 26.05.2025 however, since the
petitioner-Company had misled, such clarification
was needed. While further inviting attention of
this Court to the similar documents, which are
produced, he has submitted that there is a sheer
violation of provision of Point No.3(e)(3) of the
Government Resolution dated 20.06.2020. He has
also tendered the Letter of Award of the project
between Anish Infracon India Private Ltd. and
Government of Maharashtra and has submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
thus, as per his information, the document was
not produced along with the Bid Documents though
it was necessary for him to do so. Since under
final approval, the respondent No.4 is already
declared as L-1, it is urged by him that the
present writ petition may not be entertained.
8. We have heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties at length and also perused the
documents as pointed out by them.
9. So far as the aforementioned dates are
concerned, with regard to the tender floated on
23.04.2025 and the last date of Bid submission on
23.05.2025 are not disputed. Unquestionably, the
documents, which are mandatory to satisfy as per
the Point No.3(e)3 of the Government Resolution
dated 20.06.2020 issued by the Road and Building
Department of the State of Gujarat, were required
to be supplied along with the Bid Document. It
appears and it is not denied that the respondent-
authorities, while examining the documents,
noticed that in fact, the petitioner-Company had
declared itself as the EPC Prime Contractor
however, the Concessionaire was Shenwa
Infrastructure Private Ltd. and in order to seek
appropriate information, further clarification
was called from the petitioner-Company on
20.06.2025. The aforementioned facts about the
Concession Agreement dated 27.07.2018 between the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Principal Secretary, Public Works Department,
Government of Gujarat and Shenwa Infrastructure
Private Ltd. are undisputed. The documents, which
are produced pursuant to the communication dated
20.06.2025 seeking clarification, would also
clarify that the same do not satisfy the
requirement of Point No.3(e)3 of the Government
Resolution dated 20.06.2025. The said point of
requirements are as under:
"(3)OTHER REQUIREMENTS
(e) SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
3. Form 3A issued by employer to substantiate
successful experience of similar work. When
employer of similar work is not government,
following need also to be furnished.
a. Self attested copy of Work Order
b. Self attested copy of Agreement
c. Self attested copy of Completion Certificate
d. Self attested copy of Final Bill
e. Self attested copy of TDS Certificate
f. Self attested copy of letter of permission
given by employer for subletting the work."
10. Unquestionably, all these documents were
supposed to be supplied by the petitioner-Company
on or before 26.06.2025. Merely because, the
respondent-authorities have sought the
clarification in order to verify status of the
petitioner-Company, the same cannot in any
manner, dilute the date of submission of the
relevant documents.
11. So far as contention raised by learned
advocate Mr.Buch with regard to having being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
declared successful in Technical Bid of the
earlier tender floated by the very same
respondent-authorities before two years is
concerned, a mere such fact cannot come to the
rescue of the petitioner-Company in the present
tender.
12. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to the decision in the case of Banshidhar
Construction Pvt.Ltd. vs. Bharat Coking Coal
Limited & Ors., (2024) 10 S.C.C. 273, wherein the
Apex Court has reiterated the restricted scrutiny
by the Courts in the tender and contract matters.
The observations are as under:
"22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-
established tenets of law pertaining to the scope of
judicial intervention in Government contracts.
23. In Sterling Computers Limited vs. M/s. M & N
Publications Limited and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 445 , this
Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review of
award of contracts held: -
"18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in
respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the
State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether
there has been any infirmity in the "decision making
process". In this connection reference may be made to
the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police
vs. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141 ] where it was said that:
(p. 144a)
"The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that
the individual receives fair treatment, and not to
ensure that the authority, after according fair
treatment, reaches on a matter which it is
authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself
a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the
court."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the
details of the terms of the contract which have been
entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts
have inherent limitations on the scope of any such
enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House
of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the
North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the
courts can certainly examine whether "decision-making
process" was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
, this Court had laid down certain priniciples for the
judicial review of administrative action.
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but
merely reviews the manner in which the decision was
made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the
administrative decision is permitted it will be
substituting its own decision, without the necessary
expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open
to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is
in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the
decision to accept the tender or award the contract is
reached by process of negotiations through several
tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made
qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In
other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an
administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere.
However, the decision must not only be tested by the
application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness
(including its other facts pointed out above) but must
be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or
actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative
burden on the administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Based on these principles we will examine the facts of
this case since they commend to us as the correct
principles."
25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited
and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of
India Limited and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 , as under: -
"53. From the above, it is clear that when an
instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public
good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and
unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or
statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the
constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the
Constitution."
26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others,
(2007) 14 SCC 517 , this Court after discussing number of
judgments laid down two tests to determine the extent of
judicial interference in tender matters. They are: -
"22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by
the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone;
or
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so
arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the
decision is such that no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could
have reached;"
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226. Cases involving
blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse
(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences,
dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing
as they may require a higher degree of fairness in
action."
27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and others,
(2022) SCC Online SC 574 , while observing that the
government contracts granted by the government bodies must
uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing
with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50
as under: -
"50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in
government contracts, if granted by the government
bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9860/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
rule of law while dealing with contractual matters.
Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding
process is favoured by the Court to ensure that
constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said
that the constitutional guarantee as provided under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the
State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless
public interest demands otherwise. It is expedient that
the degree of compromise of any private legitimate
interest must correspond proportionately to the public
interest."
13. In view of the settled legal precedent of
restricted scope of interference by the Courts in
commercial transactions, we are not inclined to
pass any orders non-suiting the respondent No.4-
Dev Constructions. Any order passed by us at this
stage will cause irreparable loss to the
respondents, and also disrupt the project.
14. Under the circumstances, and in light of the
aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain
the present writ petition. The same is hereby
rejected.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
NVMEWADA/29
