Tender Challenges Based On Business Rivalry, Hurt Pride Must Be Resisted; Judicial Review In Contractual Matters Narrow: Allahabad High Court
While dealing with a tender matter, the Allahabad High Court observed that imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalries of those who have been unsuccessful in tenders should not form the basis of judicial interference.The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held,“A tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court....
While dealing with a tender matter, the Allahabad High Court observed that imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalries of those who have been unsuccessful in tenders should not form the basis of judicial interference.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held,
“A tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Ergo, attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self should not persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review.”
A tender was floated for constructing residences for judges of the Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj and at Lucknow for an estimated amount of Rs. 143 crores. While petitioner and 1 other party qualified for the technical bid, a third party who had initially been disqualified after technical bid was also selected and eventually emerged as the successful bidder.
Petitioner challenged the selection of the bid on grounds that the successful bidder was not entitled to participation in the financial bid when its original technical bid was disqualified.
The Court observed that it was a mere technical error that the bank guarantee was uploaded later and the decision to allow the bidder to participate in the tender was in the interest of the infrastructure project.
Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Tata Motors Limited vs. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best) and others and Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices, the Court held judicial intereference ought not to be made unless any gross violation is pointed out.
“Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere,” held the Court.
Holding that tenders cannot be interfered without establishing malafide, the Court held that allowing the successful bidder to upload the bank guarantee later was a technical error which was cured by the authorities in the interest of the project.
Noting that no objection was raised by the petitioner when the same were invited, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Kasana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Vikram Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Planning Lko. and 3 others [WRIT - C No. - 10836 of 2025]