Judicial review in tenders is restricted to the decision-making process, excluding merits of expert technical eligibility evaluations.

The Petitioner No. 1, a manufacturer of hydraulic motors, challenged a limited tender process (Tender No. MW-451/25-26) issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL) for the reconditioning and testing of hydraulic motors

The Petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 5, a recently incorporated company (March 2023), was ineligible as it could not fulfill the mandatory tender condition requiring audited financial statements and turnover certificates for the preceding three financial years

Despite the Petitioners’ representations and objections, the Respondent authorities declared Respondent No. 5 technically qualified and permitted them to proceed to the financial bidding and reverse auction stage

The Respondents contended that the petition was a second round of litigation, as the Petitioners had previously filed W.P.(C) No. 6303/2025 and 6304/2025 regarding the same tender, which were disposed of as premature

1. Whether the decision of the Respondent authorities to qualify Respondent No. 5 technically and commercially, despite alleged non-compliance with the three-year financial credential requirement, was arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, should interfere with an ongoing tender process at the intermediate stage of evaluation

The court primarily applied the principles of judicial review in contractual matters established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, which dictates that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself

The court also relied on the principle that interference is warranted only when a process is vitiated by patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural impropriety

Furthermore, it emphasized that the State, as an entity under Article 12, must act fairly, but retains administrative discretion in evaluating technical and financial qualifications through expert committees

The court reasoned that the evaluation of tender eligibility, particularly regarding technical and financial credentials, falls strictly within the domain of the tendering authority and its expert committees

It held that the judiciary should not substitute its own interpretation of tender conditions for that of the expert body unless the decision is ex-facie perverse

In this instance, the Petitioners failed to provide conclusive evidence that the inclusion of Respondent No. 5 was so irrational that no reasonable authority could have reached such a conclusion

The court noted that the Petitioners were themselves qualified and participating in the financial bid, meaning no personal prejudice or hostile discrimination was established

Additionally, the court highlighted that interfering at the stage of financial bidding/reverse auction would derail the procurement process and harm the larger public interest

Finally, the court observed that repeated challenges to the same tender process at different stages constitute an abuse of process

The court held that participation in a tender does not confer a vested right to exclude competitors or demand a specific outcome, provided the process remains fair and transparent

The Respondent authorities were directed to ensure the tender process reaches its logical conclusion in a fair and expeditious manner in accordance with the tender terms