Judicial Review Restricted in Disqualification of Bidders for Non-Compliance with Technical Eligibility Criteria in Public Tenders.

The Petitioner, a civil engineering firm, participated in a tender (NIT No. 08/SAC/25-26) issued by the Water Resources Department for canal lining and remodeling works valued at ₹28.81 crores

Despite submitting a bid significantly lower than Respondent No. 6, the Petitioner was disqualified by the Pre-Qualification Committee

The disqualification was based on the Petitioner’s failure to satisfy eligibility criteria regarding "bid capacity" and "proof of execution of works," specifically that certain documents were submitted after the bid deadline and others lacked verifiable payment details

The Petitioner challenged the disqualification via writ petition, alleging it was arbitrary, non-transparent, and violative of the "level playing field" doctrine

1. Whether the disqualification of the Petitioner’s technical bid by the respondent authorities was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the Court can interfere in the technical evaluation of a tender process involving expert committees under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court relied on the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness and the doctrine of judicial restraint in administrative actions

It cited Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, which established that interference is only warranted if the process is mala fide, intended to favor a party, or so irrational that no responsible authority could reach such a decision

The Court also applied Tata Cellular v. Union of India, emphasizing that courts do not sit as an appellate authority over technical experts and must allow "fair play in the joints" for the executive

It further referenced M/S. Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. GSPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd. regarding the owner’s final right to choose and the need for flexibility in contractual matters

The Court found that the tender process was conducted strictly in accordance with NIT terms

It observed that the Petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to rectify document deficiencies, and the Pre-Qualification Committee reconvened twice (01.04.2026 and 08.04.2026) to consider the Petitioner’s representations and additional documents

However, because the submitted documents were "post-bid date" or lacked necessary verification details, the Committee’s decision to maintain disqualification was deemed a reasoned exercise of power

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument regarding the lower financial bid, noting that price comparison arises only among technically qualified bidders; a disqualified bidder has no right to have their financial bid considered

The Court concluded that the evaluation was a technical matter within the expertise of the Department, and no evidence of mala fides or procedural irregularity was presented to justify judicial intervention

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and previous interim directions keeping the tender in abeyance were effectively vacated. No order as to costs was made