M/S. G.H. Khandelwal, Thr. Partner, Ankur S/O. Rupchand Khandelwal vs Amravati Municipal Corporation, Thr. Its Commissioner, Amravati And Ors.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-NAG:6315-DB
1/22 wp 293.26.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 293 OF 2026
M/s G.H. Khandelwal,
A registered Partnership Firm,
through its Partner,
Shri. Ankur S/o Rupchand Khandelwal,
having registered office at Minakshi Sadan,
New Congress Nagar, Amravati – 444606. ...Petitioner
// VERSUS //
1. Amravati Municipal Corporation,
through its Commissioner, Amravati-444601
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati.
3. The City Engineer,
Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati.
4. Idris S/o Juzar Izzuddin Saify,
nd
Contractor, Office at 2 Floor Juzar
Megamart, Jaistambh Chowk, Jawahar
Road, Amravati 444601.
5. Juzar Infraprojects
through sole proprietor,
Juzar Izzuddin Saify,
nd
Office at 2 Floor Juzar Megamart,
Jaistambh Chowk, Jawahar Road,
Amravati 444601. ... Respondents
Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri B.L. Borikar, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
Sknair
2/22 wp 293.26.docx
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
th
Reserved on : 16 April, 2026
rd
Pronounced on : 23 April, 2026
JUDGMENT : (PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties, and the
matter has been heard finally at the admission stage.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the
respondent no.1 – Amravati Municipal Corporation in respect of e-tender bearing
No. 2025_AMC_1253538_1, for the work of maintenance and repair of roads
within municipal limits of Amravati, whereby the technical bid submitted by the
petitioner came to be rejected and the bid of respondent no.4 was found responsive
and taken forward for opening of the financial bid. The petitioner calls in question
the rejection of its technical bid as well as the consequential acceptance and further
processing of the bid of respondent no.4. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner has sought
the following reliefs:
a) quash and set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid by
the respondent authorities vide Tender Summary Report dated 15-12-
2025 (Annexure No. B);
b) quash and set aside the acceptance and further processing of the bid
of Respondent No. 4 vide Tender Summary BOQ Comparative Chart
dated 15-12-2025 (Annexure No. - B)
c) declare that the participation of respondent No. 4 along with his
father’s proprietary concern constitutes cartelisation and is
impermissible in law;
Sknair
3/22 wp 293.26.docx
d) direct respondents No. 1 to 3 to hold that the petitioner’s bid is
technically sound and is in accordance with law and tender
conditions;
e) direct respondents No.1 to 3 to open the financial bid of the petitioner
and declare it to be the lowest bidder and grant the tender to the
petitioner ;
f) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, restrain the
respondents from issuing any work order to the respondent No. 4
pursuant to the impugned tender;
g) grand ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (f);
h) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest
of justice.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered partnership
firm engaged in execution of civil contracts, particularly road construction,
maintenance and allied infrastructure works. It is duly registered as a Class IV
contractor with the Public Works Division, Amravati, Public Works Department of
the Government of Maharashtra as well as Amravati Municipal Corporation. It is
the case of the petitioner that it has successfully completed several municipal
contracts of similar nature in the past and holds valid work completion certificate
issued by the said authority.
4. Respondent No.1 issued an e-tender bearing Tender ID
2025_AMC_1253538_1, pursuant to Tender Notice No. 64/2025 dated 28.11.2025
for the work titled as “Maintenance for road repair patches potholes CC road and
WBM road at various places in Zone Nos. 1, 2, 3 ,4 & 5 Amravati”. The estimated
cost of the work was approximately ₹ 1.59 crores and the stipulated period for
Sknair
4/22 wp 293.26.docx
completion was three months. The work order prescribed certain eligibility
conditions which included prior experience and availability of specialized
machinery. The tender was floated on the Maharashtra e-procurement portal and
was open to eligible contractors. As per the tender schedule, the process of
submission of bids commenced on 28/11/2025 and concluded on 08/12/2025, and
the technical bids were scheduled to be opened on 09/12/2025.
5. The petitioner submitted its bid within the stipulated time along with the
documents forming part of the technical bid including proof of experience
certificate and machinery detail. The petitioner relied upon a work done certificate
issued by the office of the respondent Corporation, certifying execution of
bituminous patch work during the financial years 2022–23, 2023–24 and 2024–25,
and asserted that the aggregate value of such work exceeded ₹1 crore, thereby
satisfying the eligibility condition prescribed under the tender. Though the technical
bids were scheduled to be opened on 09/12/2025, the outcome of the technical
evaluation was reflected on the e-procurement portal on 15/12/2025 at about 10:43
a.m., wherein the bid submitted by the petitioner was shown as “Rejected-
Technical”, whereas the bids of respondent nos.4 and 5 were found responsive.
Immediately thereafter, the financial bids of the said respondents were opened on
the same day. As a consequence, the petitioner stood excluded from further
participation in the tender process. Respondent no.4 was declared the lowest bidder.
6. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Anand Jaiswal, assisted by learned Counsel
Ms. Radhika Bajaj appearing for the petitioner, assailed the aforesaid action of the
respondent Corporation on multiple grounds.
Sknair
5/22 wp 293.26.docx
7. It is contended that respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are son and father
respectively, have participated in the bidding process as separate bidders while
relying upon substantially common machinery, resources and infrastructure, thereby
forming a single economic unit. Such participation, according to the petitioner, is
collusive in nature, amounts to cartelezation and defeats the requirement of genuine
and fair competition in the tender process.
8. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner was orally
informed by the respondent authorities that its bid came to be rejected on the ground
that it had not executed work of ₹ 1 crore in any single financial year as required
under the tender. The petitioner disputes this position and contends that such a
requirement is not prescribed in the tender document. It is submitted that a plain
reading of Clause 3( ज ) of the tender conditions indicates that the contractor is
required to have completed similar works of approximately ₹1 crore during the last
three financial years, namely 2022–2023, 2023–2024 and 2024–2025. According to
the petitioner, the clause does not mandate that such work must have been executed
within a single financial year, and rather contemplates cumulative execution over
the said period. The interpretation adopted by respondent nos. 1 to 3 is, therefore,
stated to be erroneous and contrary to the express terms of the tender.
9. It is further contended that the petitioner had placed on record a work done
certificate issued by respondent no.1 itself, certifying execution of works exceeding
₹1.41 crores across the aforesaid three financial years with satisfactory
performance. The petitioner submits that once such a certificate has been issued by
Sknair
6/22 wp 293.26.docx
the respondent authority after due verification, the same could not have been
disregarded at the stage of evaluation.
10. It is also submitted that the tender condition requires submission of a work
done certificate and does not mandate production of individual work orders.
Therefore, the insistence on additional documents, including work orders, amounts
to introducing requirements not contemplated under the tender conditions.
11. It is further submitted that both respondent nos. 4 and 5 have uploaded
documents reflecting common ownership and control, including identical business
addresses, overlapping machinery, and a list of common technical personnel.
Additionally respondent no.5 Juzar Infra Projects has executed a hire agreement of
machinery with another party namely Idris Juzar Izzuddin Saify (respondent no. 4)
for use of machinery, which further evidence collusive practices and undermines the
fairness of tender process. Certain documents, including undertakings, indicate
interdependence between the two entities, thereby undermining their status as
independent bidders.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that objections were
raised on the very same day, i.e., 15.12.2025, before respondent nos. 1 to 3
highlighting the alleged cartelization and irregularities in the tender process.
However, no action was taken and the said objections remained unaddressed.
13. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the impugned decision
constitutes a colourable exercise of power and reflects manifest favouritism towards
respondent no.4, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner and corresponding
Sknair
7/22 wp 293.26.docx
loss to the public exchequer. It is contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s
technical bid is wholly arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by non-application of mind.
14. It is further pointed out that discrepancies exist in the documents submitted
by respondent no.4. In particular, in the list of technical personnel, the name
“Vikram Kumar” is shown along with mobile number 7030184039, whereas the
individual bearing the same mobile number has submitted his name as “Vikram
Govind Kale.” Such inconsistencies, according to the petitioner, cast serious doubt
on the authenticity and genuineness of the documents submitted by respondent no.4.
15. It is also urged that though the technical bids were scheduled to be opened on
09.12.2025, the respondent authorities failed to provide any effective opportunity to
the petitioner to furnish clarification or cure the alleged defects. The technical
evaluation was conducted belatedly and the petitioner’s bid was rejected in an
arbitrary manner. It is submitted that the financial bids were opened almost
simultaneously thereafter, rendering the entire process opaque, unfair and in
violation of established tender norms.
16. It is further submitted that had a reasonable opportunity been afforded, the
petitioner would have complied with all requirements and could have emerged as
the lowest bidder.
17. It is lastly contended that despite an order dated 16.01.2026 passed by this
Court directing that no work order shall be issued, the respondent authorities issued
communication dated 12.01.2026 directing respondent no.4 to undertake patch work
from Gopal Nagar to MIDC Road, Amravati, which has since been executed. Such
Sknair
8/22 wp 293.26.docx
conduct, according to the petitioner, amounts to willful disobedience of the order of
this Court.
18. On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s
bid and all consequential actions of the respondent authorities are illegal, arbitrary
and mala fide . It is in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India as a qualified bidder has been rejected while collusion bidder has been
accepted and thus is liable to be set aside.
19. Per contra , Shri J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1
to 3, opposed the petition and supported the impugned action.
20. Shri J.B. Kasat submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches as well as on merits. He states that the impugned tender
summary report was uploaded on 15.12.2025, whereas the present petition has been
filed on 13.01.2026, without any satisfactory explanation for the intervening delay.
Further, he contends that the impugned e-tender dated 28.11.2025 was issued in
compliance with directions of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 71/2013
concerning urgent road repairs, and that the entire process has been conducted in a
fair and transparent manner in accordance with the prescribed conditions.
21. It is submitted that three bids were received within the stipulated time and,
upon opening of the technical bids on 09.12.2025, it was found that the petitioner
and respondent no.5 had not initially uploaded the mandatory work done certificate
as required under Clause 3( ज ). An opportunity was thereafter granted to them by
Sknair
9/22 wp 293.26.docx
communication dated 10.12.2025 to cure the deficiencies and submit the requisite
documents, including a work order and a work done certificate. In response thereto,
the petitioner submitted certain documents including a work order and a work done
certificate. However, upon scrutiny by the Tender Evaluation Committee in its
meeting dated 14.12.2025, it was found that the said certificate did not satisfy the
requirements prescribed under Clause 3( ज ) of the tender conditions.
22. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner failed to establish execution of
work of ₹1 crore in any one financial year, namely 2022–2023, 2023–2024 or
2024–2025, and instead sought to rely upon multiple work orders of lesser value by
clubbing them together, which was not permissible under the tender conditions. It is
further pointed out that certain work orders referred to in the certificate were not
produced and that the documents submitted lacked clarity regarding period of
completion, quality certification and satisfactory execution and on that basis, the bid
of the petitioner was found to be technically non-responsive.
23. The learned Counsel submits that the Tender Evaluation Committee, upon
due consideration of the material on record, found the petitioner ineligible and
rejected its technical bid, and the said decision was duly uploaded on 15.12.2025
prior to opening of the financial bids. The financial bids of technically qualified
bidders were thereafter opened on the same day and respondent no.4 emerged as the
lowest bidder. A Letter of Intent was accordingly issued in its favour, though
issuance of formal work order was deferred on account of the Model Code of
Conduct.
Sknair
10/22 wp 293.26.docx
24. As regards the allegation of non-compliance of the order of this Court, it is
submitted that the communication dated 12.01.2026 issued to respondent no.4 was
on account of urgent patch work required to be carried out on roads between Gopal
Nagar and MIDC, Amravati, and that the said communication was issued prior to
the order passed by this Court. It is further submitted that the Letter of Intent had
already been issued in favour of respondent no.4.
25. Insofar as the allegation of cartelization is concerned, it is submitted that
mere existence of a familial relationship between respondent nos. 4 and 5 does not,
by itself, establish collusion. It is submitted that both entities are independent
registered contractors and there is no bar under the tender conditions against such
participation. The entire tender process has been conducted strictly in accordance
with the prescribed conditions, after due application of mind and in adherence to
principles of fairness and transparency.
26. It is lastly submitted that the present matter arises out of a contractual tender
process and that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is limited. Hence, the learned Counsel prays that in the absence of
arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory provisions, no interference is
warranted.
27. Shri Borikar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, also opposed
the petition. He contended that the entire tender process has been conducted strictly
in accordance with the prescribed terms and conditions and that the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate any mala fides or arbitrariness in the process.
Sknair
11/22 wp 293.26.docx
28. The learned Counsel for respondent no 4 submitted that it is not in dispute
that three bidders, namely the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 and 5, participated in
the tender process. Upon opening of the technical bids on 09.12.2025, the Tender
Evaluation Committee scrutinized the documents and found that respondent no.4
had complied with all eligibility criteria, including Clause 3( ज ) of the tender
conditions. In contrast, the petitioner and respondent no.5 failed to submit valid and
compliant work done certificates. Despite an opportunity being granted to cure
deficiencies vide communication dated 10.12.2025, the documents submitted by the
petitioner were found to be deficient and not in conformity with the requirements of
Clause 3( ज ). The technical bid of the petitioner was accordingly rejected in the
meeting dated 14.12.2025 and the bid of respondent no.4 was accepted. Thereafter,
the financial bids were opened and respondent no.4 emerged as the lowest bidder
and was issued a Letter of Intent dated 15.12.2025, though the formal work order
was delayed due to the Model Code of Conduct.
29. With regard to the allegation of cartelization, it is submitted that respondent
nos. 4 and 5, though related, are independent contractors carrying on separate
proprietary businesses. In the absence of any cogent material indicating collusion,
bid manipulation or lack of independent decision-making, mere familial relationship
cannot be a ground to infer cartelization.
30. He further submitted that respondent no.4 has already undertaken and
executed urgent patch work as directed by the Corporation, thereby demonstrating
its technical competence and readiness to perform the contract. Thus, he contends
Sknair
12/22 wp 293.26.docx
that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of illegality, arbitrariness or mala
fides warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
31. We have given our conscious consideration to the rival submissions and have
perused the material placed on record. The controversy essentially revolves around
the interpretation of Clause 3( ) of the tender document, the sufficiency of the
ज
documents submitted by the petitioner in support of its eligibility, and whether the
decision-making process adopted by the respondent Corporation suffers from
arbitrariness so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
32. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the contours of judicial review in
matters arising out of contractual and tender process. The law is well settled that
the State and its instrumentality enjoy certain latitude in formulating tender
conditions and evaluating bids, particularly where such decision involved technical
and commercial considerations. The scope of interference is confined to examining
the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Unless the
action of the authority is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide , irrational or in violation
of the tender conditions, the Court would ordinarily refrain from interfering. The
Court must be conscious not to substitute its own view for that of expert body and
entrusted with evaluation. The principle of fairness, transparency and non-
discrimination formed the backdrop of public procurement. However, this principle
must be balanced against plea of administrative efficacy and commercial prudence.
33. The aforesaid principles have been consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, wherein it has been held that the authority
Sknair
13/22 wp 293.26.docx
issuing the tender is the best judge of its requirements and the interpretation of its
terms. It has been further held that even if more than one interpretation of a tender
condition is possible, the interpretation adopted by the tendering authority ought not
to be interfered with, unless it is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or actuated by mala
fides .
34. In Tata Cellular V. Union of India , AIR 1996 SC 11, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has summarized the guiding principles in paragraph 113 of the judgment as
under :
“113. 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.
Sknair
14/22 wp 293.26.docx
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on
the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted
expenditure.”
35. In Silppi Constructions Contractors V. Union of India and another , (2020)
16 SCC 489 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the authority floating the
tender is the best judge of its requirements, and therefore, the Court’s interference
should be minimal. It is held in paragraph 20 as under :
“20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to
above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts
should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is
totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court
of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that
the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements
and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The
authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the
tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to
be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the
interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only
interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present
case.”
36. In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Versus. State of Karnataka and
others , (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again summarized
the principles governing the scope of judicial review in tender matters. It has held in
paragraph 23 as under :
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the
State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat
Sknair
15/22 wp 293.26.docx
of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to
the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and
not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the
bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview
of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this
process except for striking down such action of the executive as is
proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in
conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as
awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the
interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document
and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded
to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is
found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers,
interference by courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be
laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the
resources to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in
public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court
is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to
carry on business with the Government.”
37. Similar view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Agmatel India Private Limited V. Resoursys Telecom and Others, (2022) 5 SCC
362, wherein it underscores that interference by the High Court is unwarranted in
the absence of any allegation or proof of mala fides or bias. Merely because a
decision of the administrative authority does not appeal to the Court or appears less
acceptable cannot, by itself, render such decision arbitrary or whimsical.
38. The Court, therefore, exercises restraint in interfering with technical
evaluation of bids unless the decision is demonstrably unreasonable or in violation
Sknair
16/22 wp 293.26.docx
of the tender conditions themselves. Keeping in mind the principles discussed
above, we now advert to the challenge raised by the petitioner in the present
petition.
39. The central controversy revolves around interpretation of clause 3( ) of the
ज
tender condition which requires the bidder to complete similar work during last
three financial years by approximate value of Rs.1 Crore. For the sake of
convenience, the same is reproduced herein below:
" 3 ¼ 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25)
कं त्राटदारानेमागील वित्तियवर्षांमध्ये
1/-
मनपा क्षेत्रातकिमान कोटीरुपयेमूल्याचेडांबरी पॅचेसचेकामकेलेले
- -
असणेआवश्यकआहे वत्यानुसारकामाचेप्रमाणपत्रजोडणेआवश्यकआहे
तसेचसदरपॅचेसचेकामआपणनियुक्तकालावधीतवगुणवत्तापूर्वकपूर्ण
;kaps
केल्याचेप्राधीकृतअधिकारी प्रमाणपत्रसंबधीतकंत्राटदारानेनिविदेसोबत
.”
जोडणेआवश्यकआहे
40. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the clause
permits aggregation of work executed over three financial years to meet threshold
of Rs.1 crore, whereas respondents have construed the clause as requiring execution
of such value within a single financial year. A plain reading of the clause thus
indicates some degree of ambiguity inasmuch as it does not expressly stipulate
whether the value is to be achieved cumulatively or within a single year. However,
it is equally well settled that in matters of the tender interpretation, the author of the
tender documents is the best judge of its requirement, and its interpretation must
ordinarily be accorded deference as held in Afcons Infrastructure Limited V.
Sknair
17/22 wp 293.26.docx
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and another, (2016) 16 SCC 818 . Paragraph
15 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
“15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having
authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and
appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The
constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and
appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or
perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application
of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or
employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender
documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but
that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation
given.”
41. The purpose underlining such eligibility criteria is to ensure that the bidder
possesses demonstrable technical and financial capacity to execute works of
substantial magnitude. Viewed in this context, the interpretation adopted by the
respondents, that the bidder must demonstrate the execution of work of comparable
state within a define time frame, cannot be said to be irrational and arbitrary. Even
assuming that the clause is capable of a different interpretation as suggested by the
petitioner, the Court would not be justified in substituting its own interpretation in
place of that adopted by the tendering authority. Unless interpretation adopted is
categorically unreasonable or established by mala fides judicial restraint must
prevail.
42. The record further indicates that upon initial scrutiny the petitioner had not
furnished the work done certificate in conformity with clause 3( ज ). Thereafter, an
opportunity was granted to the petitioner by communication dated 10.12.2025 to
Sknair
18/22 wp 293.26.docx
submit the requisites documents. The petitioner thereafter submitted a work done
certificate and certain work orders. However, upon detailed scrutiny by the tender
evaluation committee in its meeting dated 14.12.2025, the following deficiencies
were noted.
a) The work done certificate does not establish the execution of work of
Rs.1 crore in any identifiable financial year.
b) Multiple work orders of lesser value were clubbed together without
clarity as to the completion of timelines.
c)
Certain work order referred to in the certificate were not produced.
d) The documents lacked specificity regarding satisfactory certificate
completion, quality certification and period of execution.
43. Evaluation of such document is a matter requiring technical expertise and
administrative assessment. Tender evaluation committee being the designated expert
body has undertaken such evaluation and recorded its findings. This Court does not
find any material to indicate that the decision is perverse, arbitrary or based on
extraneous consideration. The conclusion that the petitioner failed to meet the
eligibility criteria is a possible and reasoned one, based on the material placed
before the Committee.
44. The contention of the petitioner that it was denied an opportunity to clarify
the alleged deficiencies is also not borne out from the record. The communication
dated 10/12/2025 clearly indicates that an opportunity was granted to the petitioner
to furnish the requisite documents, which the petitioner availed. Once such an
opportunity was provided and the documents were duly considered, it cannot be
said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice.
Sknair
19/22 wp 293.26.docx
45. In tender matters, the application of principle of natural justice is neither
rigid nor formalistic; the requirement is of fairness in action. Once an opportunity
to cure defects has been provided, the bidder cannot claim an indefinite right to
further clarification. The decision-making process, therefore, cannot be faulted on
the grounds of violation of principles natural justice.
46. The submission of the petitioner that the technical evaluation and opening of
financial bids took place in close proximity of time also does not advance its case.
Mere proximity in timing does not, by itself, establish arbitrariness or lack of
fairness, particularly when the record indicates that the process of scrutiny and
evaluation had already been undertaken and the petitioner had been afforded an
opportunity to submit documents.
47. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also alleged cartelization
on the ground that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are related as son and father and had
participated in the same tender. While cartelization is a serious allegation that strike
at the root of fair competition, the same must be substantiated by cogent and
credible material. Mere relationship between bidders, cannot be an inference of
collusion. What is required to establish in such a case is that the tendering authority
has abused its dominance or that the competent bidder is ousted as a result of anti-
competitive practices. None of these to the prejudice of petitioner is evident in the
present case.
48. Upon scrutiny, the contention does not sustain. The allegation of cartelisation
is based primarily on the relationship between respondent nos.4 and 5 and certain
Sknair
20/22 wp 293.26.docx
similarities in the documents submitted by them. However, it is not in dispute that
both respondents are independently registered contractors and have participated in
the tender process in their individual capacities. The tender document does not
prohibit participation by related entities. In the absence of any material to
demonstrate bid-rigging, price manipulation or lack of independent decision-
making, the allegation of cartelisation remains unsubstantiated.
49. The petitioner has further relied upon an undertaking executed by respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 to contend that they are acting hand in gloves. However, as observed
earlier, both respondents are independent entities and their participation in the
tender process is in their individual capacities. The said contention, therefore, does
not merit acceptance. The additional discrepancies pointed out in the technical
personnel details, even if it assumes to be irregularities, are not of such magnitude
as to vitiate the entire process in the absence of demonstrable prejudice. In the
absence of substantive evidence, the allegations of cartelisation remains in realm of
conjecture and cannot be a ground for judicial interference in present factual matrix.
50. It is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of
proof. Allegations of cartelisation are serious in nature and must be supported by
clear and cogent material. In the present case, what is shown is at the highest a
possibility arising out of relationship and some overlapping resources, but that is not
sufficient to conclude that the tender process was vitiated by collusion.
51. The sequence of events indicate that the technical evaluation was conducted,
the decisions were recorded and the results were uploaded on the official portal,
Sknair
21/22 wp 293.26.docx
thereafter financial bids of eligible bidders were opened. No material irregularity
has been demonstrated in the conduct of the process. The petitioner’s assertion that
it would have emerged as a lowest bidder is speculated and cannot form the basis
for invalidating the tender. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have raised an objection
regarding delay. While there is some delay in approaching this Court, the same in
facts of the present case is not of such magnitude so as to non-suit the petitioner.
However, this aspect does not advance the case of the petitioner on merits.
52. The public interest in timely execution of essential works, particularly those
relating to infrastructure and road safety is also relevant consideration which cannot
be over looked.
53. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court concludes that the rejection of
the petitioner’s technical bid is based on reason and objective assessment of
documents and does not suffer from arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity. The
interpretation of clause 3( ज ) adopted by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is a possible
interpretation, consistent with the purpose of the eligibility criteria. The petitioner
was afforded a fair opportunity to cure deficiencies and no violation of principles of
natural justice is made out. The allegations of mala fides , bias and cartelization are
unsubstantiated and unsupported by cogent material on record. The tender process,
when viewed as a whole, satisfies the requirements of fairness and transparency and
non-discrimination. It is trite law that in commercial matters of this nature, the
Court must exercise restraint and defer to the wisdom of the administrative
authority, unless the decision is shown to be palpably arbitrary or illegal. No such
case is made out in the present matter.
Sknair
22/22 wp 293.26.docx
54. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that it
would neither be appropriate nor proper for this Court to interfere with the
impugned decision in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, particularly having regard to the well settled parameters governing the
exercise of jurisdiction in matters relating to the award of public contracts. With
these observations and findings, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
55. Rule stands discharged.
[NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.] [URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.]
After the pronouncement of the judgment today, the learned Counsel Ms.
Radhika Bajaj for the petitioner prays to stay the operation and effect of the
judgment. No exceptional or compelling circumstance have been pointed out which
would justify staying the operation and effect of the judgment. Moreover, granting
of stay would amount to grant of very relief which has already been declined by the
Court. Hence, the prayer is rejected.
[NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.] [URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.]
Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/04/2026 19:14:14
Sknair