Tender authorities must reconsider bid-timing disputes after examining crucial evidence and hearing all affected parties.

The petitioners applied for allotment of Plot No. J/1A at Baltikuri Industrial Park on a long-term lease basis.

As multiple applications were received, the respondent Corporation initiated a bidding process, requiring sealed bids to be submitted by 12 March 2025 at 2:00 p.m.

The petitioners claimed to have submitted their bid at 1:50 p.m. and alleged that the bid submitted by the private respondent was accepted after the deadline.

The petitioners’ earlier writ petition was disposed of on 8 May 2025 with a direction to the Managing Director to consider their representation dated 26 March 2025, examine whether any bid had been accepted after the stipulated time, and, if necessary, view the CCTV footage.

By order dated 22 May 2025, the Corporation again rejected the petitioners’ representation, stating that the allegation was unsubstantiated and that CCTV footage was no longer available because it was retained for approximately 28 days.

In the present proceedings, the petitioners relied upon an extract of the Corporation’s gate-entry register, which recorded the private respondent’s representative as entering the premises at 2:00 p.m.

Whether the impugned order dated 22 May 2025 was sustainable when the Corporation had not considered the CCTV footage or the subsequently produced gate-entry register in determining whether the private respondent’s bid was submitted within time.

Whether the present writ petition was barred by res judicata or estoppel because of the petitioners’ earlier writ petition.

Whether the Corporation was required to reconsider the petitioners’ representation after providing all concerned parties an opportunity of hearing.

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in examining whether the public authority’s decision-making process was fair, rational, and based on relevant material.

It acknowledged the principle that courts ordinarily exercise restraint in contractual and commercial matters and do not interfere with a bona fide tender decision merely for a procedural error or alleged prejudice, as stated in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transporters and Suppliers v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808, and State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, (2022) 5 SCC 648.

However, administrative decisions must still be reasoned, must consider relevant evidence, and must comply with procedural fairness.

The Court further held that the present petition involved a fresh cause of action arising from the order dated 22 May 2025 and was therefore not barred by res judicata or estoppel.

The Court found that the Corporation’s original rejection dated 13 March 2025 did not record that CCTV footage had been considered.

Although the earlier order of the Court specifically permitted examination of the CCTV footage, the footage had subsequently become unavailable due to the Corporation’s 28-day retention policy.

The gate-register extract, produced in the present proceedings, was an official document originating from the respondent authorities and was material to determining whether the private respondent could have submitted its bid before the deadline.

While the private respondent disputed the inference to be drawn from the register by asserting that the recorded time was actually his exit time, that explanation itself demonstrated the existence of a factual controversy requiring examination.

The Corporation therefore could not conclusively reject the petitioners’ case without considering the register and hearing all parties.

The Court accordingly found the impugned decision procedurally deficient and unsustainable.

The respondent authority was directed to reconsider the petitioners’ representation, examine the gate-entry register—including, if necessary, by calling for the original register—and provide all parties an opportunity of hearing.

A reasoned and speaking order was directed to be passed within three weeks from receipt of the judgment.

The writ petition, W.P.O. No. 435 of 2025, was accordingly disposed of.