2. Though the matter is listed today for orders, it is
3. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
iv) PASS any such other suitable order/s as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the ends of justice and equity."
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
HC-KAR
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the tender process
initiated by the respondents authority, is arbitrary, unfair, and
violative of the principles governing public procurement. It is
urged that the tender conditions ought to have been framed
differently and that the evaluation conducted by the respondents'
authority suffers from infirmities.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender
matters is extremely limited and that the petitioners seeks, in
effect, a substitution of this Court's view in place of that of the
competent authority, which is impermissible in law. Counsel
Sri.S.V.Yaji., drew the attention of the Court to Rule 17 of the
Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules 2000, to
contend that the time frame fixed for submission of bids is in
consonance with the Rules. Hence, they submit that the
petitioners cannot have any grievance.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
HC-KAR
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that
the law relating to judicial interference in tender matters is well
settled.
6. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the
impugned Tender Notification on two principal grounds. Firstly, it
is contended that the stipulation of a mere 15 days' period for
submission of bids, particularly in the backdrop of intervening
holidays, is grossly inadequate, arbitrary, and has the effect of
unduly restricting fair and meaningful participation. Such an
unreasonably short timeline is alleged to be contrary to the
prescribed Guidelines of the Tourism Department and violative of
the principles of fair competition. Secondly, it is asserted that the
Tender Notification imposes a condition which is impossible of
compliance, thereby rendering the entire tender process vitiated
in law. To be precise, the present writ petition challenges the
adequacy of the time frame provided for submitting bids, as well
as certain conditions imposed in the bid documents by the
respondents.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
HC-KAR
Upon a detailed examination of the relevant provisions, the
Court notes that the rule governing bid submissions clearly
contemplates a 15-day period. The said period is prescribed
under the applicable statutory framework and has been adhered
to by the respondents in the present case. The petitioners'
contention that this period is inadequate, particularly in view of
intervening holidays, cannot be sustained in the face of the
unequivocal statutory provisions.
Moreover, the contention that the imposition of certain
conditions in the bid documents is impossible or burdensome
also fails to convince this Court. The petitioners cannot seek
judicial intervention merely because some conditions are
unfavourable or difficult to meet. The Courts are not forums to
adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of contractual
conditions unless they are manifestly arbitrary, illegal, or in
violation of statutory or constitutional principles. As the
conditions laid down by the respondents are within the bounds of
the applicable rules and regulations, and no specific instance of
illegality or unreasonableness has been demonstrated, the
petition does not merit judicial intervention.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
HC-KAR
Furthermore, the Apex Court has consistently held that in
matters related to the award of contracts and tender processes,
the scope of judicial review is limited to examining the decision-
making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Courts
must exercise restraint and avoid substituting their own views
for those of the tendering authority, especially in matters
involving technical evaluation and commercial considerations. It
is equally well established that the authorities issuing the tender
are the best judges of their requirements. Courts do not possess
the requisite technical expertise to assess or re-evaluate tender
conditions or comparative merits of bids and must, therefore,
defer to the wisdom of the administrative authorities.
It is also trite that no bidder has a fundamental right to
insist upon the State/ authority entering into a contract with it.
Judicial intervention cannot be invoked merely on the ground
that certain tender conditions could have been more equitable or
favorable.
Interference by this Court is warranted only when the
action of the authority is shown to be vitiated by mala fide
intention, manifest arbitrariness, discrimination, or violates
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
HC-KAR
public interest. Similarly, where there is a clear breach of
principles of natural justice, procedural impropriety, or abuse of
power, the Court may justifiably step in.
In the present case, the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate any mala fides on the part of the respondents'
authority. There is no material on record to establish that the
process adopted was arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by
extraneous considerations. The challenge raised is essentially
directed against the wisdom of the tender conditions and the
evaluation thereof, which falls squarely within the domain of the
competent authority.
This Court finds no violation of principles of natural justice
or any procedural irregularity of such magnitude as would
warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned tender process.
8. Ordered accordingly.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4946
HC-KAR
9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5
