Gujarat High Court
Milan Road Buildtech Llp vs State Of Gujarat on 15 October, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13929/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13929 of 2025
==========================================================
MILAN ROAD BUILDTECH LLP
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
P M BUCH(7383) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VAISHNAVI VERMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present writ petition is yet again a frivolous attempt made by
the petitioner - Company as fairly pointed out by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Vaishnavi Verma. She has submitted that on the
basis of the very same documents which were relied upon in the earlier
writ petition filed by the present petitioner - Company being Special Civil
Application No. 9860 of 2025, which came to be rejected by this Court
vide order dated 22.07.2025. Therefore, merely because the petitioner -
Company has participated in another tender does not give rise to any
fresh cause of action.
2. Learned advocate Mr. P.M. Buch appearing for the petitioner is
unable to dispute such facts and in fact has fairly admitted that all the
documents relied upon in the present writ petition are the same
documents and by taking support of such documents, the petitioner -
Company had participated in the earlier tender which has been issued by
the same respondents on 23.04.2025. Merely because the petitioner -
Company has participated again in an another tender floated by the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13929/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
respondent, the petitioner - Company has approached this Court by filing
present writ petition by placing reliance on the same documents and the
bid conditions.
3. In the earlier writ petition being Special Civil Application No.
9860 of 2025, which was filed by the petitioner - Company challenging
its disqualification in the technical bid, this Court has held thus:
"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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13929/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
11. So far as contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Buch with regard to
having being 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."
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13929/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
(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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13929/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
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 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. "
4. The petitioner - Company has again disqualified in the technical
bid by the respondents in the present tender on the basis of the same
documents and for the same reasons, however, no distinguishing feature
has been pointed out by learned advocate Mr. P.M. Buch appearing for
the petitioner - Company, to convince us to take a different view.
5. Hence, the present petition is not only frivolous but has also wasted
the precious time of the Court. Hence, we reject the present writ petition
by imposing exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the
petitioner-Company within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of the present order, failing which, the Registry shall place the
matter before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction over contempt
matters.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Radhika / 9
