Courts must exercise judicial restraint in tender matters and avoid interfering once project execution has significantly commenced.

The Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam, invited tenders for construction works in Nalbari district under a two-bid system

The appellants emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidders, quoting rates more than 15% below the Detailed Schedule Rate (DSR)

Per Clause 2.A.(g) of the bid document, they submitted rate analyses and justifications, which were subsequently validated by a departmental engineer’s physical verification report

Based on this, work orders were issued on 06.01.2024

A private respondent (an unsuccessful bidder) challenged these allotments via writ petitions

A Single Judge set aside the work orders, finding the verification process "pre-determined and biased" due to alleged irregularities in GSTIN quotes, identical photographs used for different sites, and lack of geo-tagging

The State and the contractors appealed this decision

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint in tender matters, emphasizing that courts should not sit as an appellate authority over the decision-making process of experts unless it is infested with mala fides or unreasonableness

It relied on the precedents of Afcon Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr. (2016) 16 SCC 818 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. A.R.M. Dev Prabha & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 759, which establish that the author of the tender is the best judge of its interpretation and that least interference is advisable in commercial matters

The Court reasoned that the Bid Process Management Committee, comprised of domain experts, had followed the procedure delineated in Clause 2.A.(g) of the tender document by requiring and accepting rate justifications and physical verification

The Court found the Single Judge’s scrutiny of GSTIN numbers belonging to third-party material suppliers (Maa Enterprise) to be irrelevant, as the supplier's registration was not a mandatory criterion for the bidder’s eligibility

the Court noted that the challenge was raised by an unsuccessful bidder whose offer was significantly higher, and that interference at a stage where substantial construction had already commenced (allegedly 70%) was "wholly unjustified" as it halted public work

The court observed that the allegations of collusion were "overarching" and lacked the requisite proof to overcome the presumption of regularity in expert committee decisions

The Division Bench set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2024 and upheld the original work orders

The Court directed the appellants to complete the entire work as per specifications within the extended time limit ending on 30.06.2026

All writ appeals were allowed