Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tender For Food Supply At Lucknow Zoo

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition challenging the tendering of food supply for animals at the Nawab Wazid Ali Shah Zoological Garden, Lucknow holding that the final eligibility for supply of products depends on the owner.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,

“It is not uncommon that when a tender matter is challenged by one of the parties the entire focus of the Court shifts in choosing the most eligible party. However, this inquiry of choosing the most eligible party cannot ignore the needs of the owner. The final choice has to be left to the owner, as it is for the owner to take the final decision with necessary flexibility and pragmatism.”

Petitioner bid for the supply of food material for the wild animals at the Nawab Wazid Ali Shah Zoological Garden, Lucknow. The tender, floated on 24.04.2026 for the year 2026-27, covered 21 food articles, each to be quoted at a rate per kilogram. A three member committee evaluated the bids on 02.07.2026 and found the cumulative rate of the petitioner to be Rs.1324.44 against Rs.539 quoted by respondent no.4, who was declared L-1. A work order followed on 08.07.2026.

Challenging that declaration under Article 226, petitioner sought re-evaluation of the financial bids taking the complete quantity of the 21 articles into account. It was argued that the authority had gone only by the rates quoted and should have factored in the quantity to be supplied every month.

Finding the argument attractive at first blush, the Court held on closer scrutiny that the methodology adopted was consistent with the tender. Clause 10 required acceptance on the lowest overall rates quoted for the complete list of materials in the Bill of Quantities, Clause 9 made those rates inclusive of all taxes with nothing further payable, and Clause 14 required the cost of delivery up to the zoo store to be built in.

Clause 15 did prescribe an estimated monthly quantity for each article, but the Court held that Clause 16 made that estimate conditional, as demand could vary substantially, certain materials might not be ordered at all, and no compensation was payable to the supplier on that account.

The Court held where a tender provides that the bid quoting the lowest total of rates for the complete list of required materials will be accepted, the tendering authority need not weigh those rates against the estimated monthly quantities while deciding who the lowest bidder is. The monthly quantities, it held, were only an estimate liable to substantial variation and could not govern the evaluation.

“Thus, according to us, the rates have been fixed for all intents and purposes of 21 articles for a period of one year i.e. 2026-27 and the same cannot be varied/changed in any circumstances.”

Referring to its recent decision in Ranjana Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others on the limits of interference by the writ court in tender matters, the Court held that judicial scrutiny could not disregard the needs and requirements of the Lucknow Zoo.

Noting that the petitioner had admittedly raised no pre-bid query and voiced no doubt about the evaluation methodology, the Court held that he ought to have approached it before participating in the tender if he thought the conditions unfair.

“The case set up by the petitioner at this stage, i.e. after the L-1 bidder has been selected, is highly belated.”

Holding that the writ court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the author of the tender document, whose interpretation would not be interfered with unless perverse, the Court dismissed the petition.