Judicial Review Limited; Bid Validity Expiry Renders Petition Infructuous
In a significant decision, the Patna High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s Trijal Construction Pvt. Ltd., challenging its disqualification from a government tender process. The division bench, comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Shailendra Singh, ruled that judicial intervention in tender matters is limited and unwarranted unless the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide, or affects public interest.
The case revolved around a tender issued by the Union of India for Optical Fibre Cable laying and associated works. M/s Trijal Construction was disqualified for failing to submit mandatory documents, specifically work orders supporting experience certificates for each financial year, as required by the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).
The petitioner argued that the disqualification was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness, asserting that all necessary documents were provided. However, the respondents maintained that the petitioner did not upload the requisite work orders within the stipulated timeframe, leading to non-compliance with the tender's mandatory conditions.
The court noted that the bid validity period of 150 days, which commenced on February 21, 2025, had expired in July 2025. This expiry rendered the petitioner's request for relief impractical, as the bid lost its enforceability post-expiry. The bench emphasized that once the bid validity period expires, no effective relief can be granted, and any adjudication on merits becomes academic.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, including Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., the court highlighted the principle that the entity issuing the tender is best placed to interpret its terms unless such interpretation is arbitrary or perverse. The court reiterated the necessity of judicial restraint in technical matters, underscoring that interference is warranted only when actions are arbitrary or affect public interest.
Ultimately, the court found no evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide intent in the disqualification decision. Given the expiry of the bid validity period, the court concluded that the writ petition was infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
This decision reinforces the limited scope of judicial review in tender processes, affirming that courts should defer to the tender author's interpretation unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or public interest detriment exists.
Bottom line:-
Judicial review in tender processes is limited and interference is unwarranted unless the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide, or affects public interest. Expiry of bid validity period renders the writ petition infructuous.
Statutory provision(s): Judicial Review, Tender Process, Bid Validity Period, Writ Jurisdiction
M/s Trijal Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2898824
