Interim tender-order modification is not a Clause 12 Letters Patent judgment.

The appellant, a proprietorship concern supplying fencing, electrification, solar and allied stores to Army units, participated in nine parallel tenders issued by the 59 Engineer Regiment for realignment works in the Naushera–Jhanger sector.

A corrigendum introduced a requirement for physical submission and demonstration of a “Solar Cube Generator-cum-Invertor” sample at the Technical Evaluation Committee stage.

The appellant was declared technically rejected on grounds including non-submission of BIS/ISO certificates, late and non-conforming sample submission, and failure to establish non-infringement of patent rights.

The appellant challenged the rejection, the corrigendum, and the tender process in WP(C) No. 2388/2026, alleging, inter alia, absence of the Technical Evaluation Committee, arbitrary clearance of competing bidders, cartelisation, and discriminatory evaluation.

The Single Judge initially directed deferment of opening of the financial bids, but subsequently permitted the respondents to proceed with and finalise the tender, subject to the outcome of the writ petition and without permitting the successful bidder to claim equity.

The appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against that interlocutory order.

Whether the Single Judge’s order modifying an earlier interim restraint and permitting continuation and finalisation of the tender, subject to the result of the writ petition, constituted a “judgment” appealable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent?

Whether the Division Bench ought to interfere with the Single Judge’s exercise of discretion in permitting continuation of an operationally urgent defence tender?

Whether the appellant was entitled, at the interlocutory stage, to directions treating it as technically qualified, ordering re-evaluation, or requiring opening of its financial bid?

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent permits an intra-court appeal only against a “judgment”; under Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8, and Midnapore Peoples’ Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399, an appealable judgment must determine a right or issue with the requisite degree of finality, whereas routine interlocutory orders that merely regulate proceedings are not appealable.

Modification of an interim order is within the interlocutory jurisdiction of the court and does not, by itself, create an appealable judgment.

Appellate interference with interim relief is limited to cases of perversity, disregard of settled principles, reliance on irrelevant considerations, or omission of legally mandatory considerations.

In tender matters, judicial review examines the decision-making process rather than undertaking a re-evaluation of technical merits; courts should not substitute their view for that of the Technical Evaluation Committee, particularly in technically specialised contracts.

Public interest may outweigh the private commercial interest of an unsuccessful bidder, especially where the procurement concerns urgent defence and operational requirements.

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had not finally determined the legality of the appellant’s technical rejection, the validity of the corrigendum, the alleged absence of the Technical Evaluation Committee, cartelisation, discrimination, or mala fides.

Those questions were expressly left open for adjudication in the pending writ petition.

The impugned order merely modified an earlier deferment of the tender process, preserved the appellant’s remedies, made finalisation subject to the writ petition, and prohibited the successful bidder from claiming equity.

It therefore regulated the interim position without determining any substantive right and was not a “judgment” under Clause 12.

The Court further found no ground for appellate interference.

The Single Judge had considered the disputed technical evaluation, the respondents’ assertion that the financial bids had already been opened, and the operational importance of the defence works along the Line of Control.

Granting the appellant’s interlocutory relief would effectively amount to treating it as technically qualified and would pre-empt the merits of the writ petition and the functions of the Technical Evaluation Committee.

The Letters Patent Appeal was consequently held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the writ petition, kept all contentions open, returned the produced record, and disposed of the connected applications.