Rejection Of Bid Despite Relevant Documents Arbitrary, Discriminatory: Allahabad High Court Stays Tender Process

Observing that the bid of the petitioner had been rejected despite providing relevant documents, the Allahabad High Court held that the decision-making process of the tendering authority was discriminatory. Thus, the Court stayed the entire tendering process and forbade the respondents from entering into any contract pursuant to the tender.

Noting that the Court does not usually interfere in tendering process, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed,

“…it is clear from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioners had provided all the relevant documents and in spite of the same the petitioners were technically disqualified. The said illegal decision stares at the face of this Court, as the said decision making process of the authority appears to be discriminatory and amounts to not providing equal level of playing field to the petitioners as enshrined under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of our Constitution. This Court is of the considered view that fair treatment is the corner stone in awarding of any Government contract.”

Uttar Pradesh Beej Vikas Nigam Limited advertised a tender for supply of High Density (Anti-Skid) Poly Ethylene (HDPE) Sack (Non Laminated) Woven Bags On Circular Loom for different

Capacities. Petitioner submitted its bid with requisite documents. Petitioner also supplied a letter from National Seed Corporation Limited indicating that they had successfully completed the same order for them.

Petitioner pleaded that though the purchase order and certificates of NSCL showed that the bags supplied by the petitioner to NSCL were of the similar nature and petitioner had the technical expertise to carry out the tender, the bid was rejected on arbitrary and irrational grounds. It was rejected on grounds that the petitioner had not uploaded purchase order and successful completion certificate as per tender specifications.

It was argued that the representation of the petitioner with the purchase order copies was also rejected and the very next day, on a Sunday, the financial bid was conducted. It was argued that the process was being conducted to favour one party.

Perusing the documents, the Court observed that the petitioner had successfully completed the supply of HDPE Bags to NSCL and the rejection of the bid on grounds that it did not upload the purchase order and completion certificate was arbitrary.

“Prima facie, we are of the view that disqualification of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not provide sufficient documents to indicate supply in the last three years of HDPE Bags is not justified and appears to be arbitrary and actuated by mala fide. The basis on which the petitioners have been disqualified and the justification given in the short counter affidavit also upon the face of it is incorrect.”

The Court held that the decision-making process was tainted with bias and arbitrariness. It held that such illegal decision-making process is violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as it does not provide level playing field to participants.

While staying the entire tender process, the Court directed the petitioner to implead the two participants who were declared as L1 for bags of different sizes. The Court also directed the Counsel for respondent to obtain instructions as to whether petitioner could be included in the tender process at this stage.

The case is directed to be listed on 14.05.2026.

Case Title: M/S Associated Jute Industries Thru. Its Partner Shri Aditya Agarwal And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agri. Lko And 2 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order