01Facts
The petitioner participated in a tender issued on 16 January 2025 for the holistic development of Surya Dev Mandir, Katarmal.
¶ 1The tender required bidders to provide details, in Form EXP-2, of at least one similar contract started and substantially or successfully completed within the preceding five years, and to show execution of work worth at least ₹137.25 lakh in any one financial year during that period.
¶ 3–5The petitioner submitted an experience certificate issued by Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. for construction work at Ma Barahi Temple, Devidhura. The certificate recorded commencement on 11 September 2017 and annual work values for 2018–19 to 2020–21; it was not in the prescribed Form EXP-2 format.
¶ 6The Technical Evaluation Committee declared the bid non-responsive on 4 April 2025. The petitioner’s representation was also rejected, with the Committee relying on the commencement date being outside the required five-year period.
¶ 2, 8The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226.
¶ 7–802Issues
i.1. Whether the Technical Evaluation Committee was justified in declaring the petitioner’s technical bid non-responsive because the experience relied upon did not meet the tender’s five-year requirement and was not submitted in the prescribed format.
¶ 3–5, 8–9ii.2. Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Committee’s application of the tender conditions in the absence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or perversity.
¶ 10–1703Law Applied
In tender matters, judicial review is limited to examining the legality and fairness of the decision-making process; a court does not substitute its view for that of the tendering authority merely because another interpretation is possible. Under Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the employer that authored the tender is ordinarily best placed to interpret its requirements, and its interpretation should be respected unless tainted by mala fides or perversity.
¶ 10–12Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. require courts to weigh public interest and avoid interference in commercial tender decisions absent a legally material defect.
¶ 13–14N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain cautions against interference that delays infrastructure projects, while Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, applying the principles in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, frames review around whether the decision was mala fide or so arbitrary and irrational that no reasonable authority could have made it, and whether public interest is affected.
¶ 15–1604Reasoning
The tender expressly required experience in a similar contract started and substantially or successfully completed within the preceding five years, along with information in Form EXP-2.
¶ 3–5The certificate relied upon by the petitioner recorded that the relevant work commenced in 2017, before the required period, and was not in the prescribed format.
¶ 6, 9The Court accepted the State’s position that these defects justified treating the bid as non-responsive. Finding no basis to displace the Technical Evaluation Committee’s assessment, and applying the restrained approach required in tender review, the Court held that the decision disclosed no ground for judicial interference.
¶ 9–10, 1705Holding
The Court held that the Technical Evaluation Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid and found no scope for interference under Article 226.
¶ 9, 17The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order dated 23 April 2025 was vacated.
¶ 18–19Original Court PDF
IN THE MATTER OF YOGESH TEWARIvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
