Patna HC Refuses To Interfere With Packaging Of Rural Road Tenders, Says Courts Cannot Direct State To Structure Tender Conditions
The Patna High Court has refused to interfere with the structuring and packaging of tenders floated under Bihar's Rural Road Strengthening and Management Programme, holding that fixation of tender conditions and procurement methodology fall primarily within the executive domain and are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review. A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice...
The Patna High Court has refused to interfere with the structuring and packaging of tenders floated under Bihar's Rural Road Strengthening and Management Programme, holding that fixation of tender conditions and procurement methodology fall primarily within the executive domain and are not ordinarily amenable to judicial review.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by an unemployed engineer registered as a Class-III contractor under the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar.
The petitioner challenged Notice Inviting Tender Nos. RRSMP-03/2024-25, RRSMP-07/2024-25 and RRSMP-08/2024-25 issued under the Mukhya Mantri Gramin Sadak Unnayan Yojna (MMGSUY).
According to the petitioner, earlier government policies including Memo No. 1399 dated 31.01.2008, Resolution dated 16.08.2013 and Letter No. 2390 dated 10.04.2015 were intended to provide limited-value works and opportunities to unemployed engineers and Class-III contractors. However, by clubbing multiple roads into large packages, the authorities had allegedly increased the tender value beyond the permissible limits for such contractors, thereby excluding them from participation.
The petitioner argued that the impugned tender conditions defeated the very object of the policy framework meant to encourage participation of unemployed engineers. Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the tenders had been floated under a large-scale rural road strengthening and maintenance programme approved by the Bihar Council of Ministers on 14.11.2024, involving long-term maintenance obligations extending up to seven years.
The State further submitted that block-wise and sub-division-wise packaging had been adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 1718 dated 15.11.2024 as a matter of policy and administrative necessity. It was also pointed out that eligibility conditions had been relaxed and participation through Joint Venture (JV) arrangements had been permitted to broaden participation.
The Court framed the principal issue as:
“Whether, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can direct the respondent authorities to provide or carve out 15% reservation/allotment for unemployed engineers and Class-III contractors under the impugned tender process…”
After hearing the parties, the Bench held that the grievance essentially related to the manner in which the State had structured and packaged the tenders, which constituted a policy decision.
The Court observed:
“It is now well settled that fixation of tender conditions, structuring of public contracts, determination of eligibility criteria and formulation of procurement methodology fall primarily within the executive domain of the executive. Judicial review in such matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.”
The Court further observed that it does not sit in appeal over policy decisions in contractual matters unless the action is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, or violative of statutory or constitutional provisions.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the impugned tenders related to a large-scale infrastructure and maintenance programme involving long-term obligations and that the packaging of works had been undertaken on the basis of administrative requirements and policy considerations. The Bench observed:
“Merely because the petitioner or similarly situated contractors are unable to participate due to scale of packages does not, by itself, render the tender conditions arbitrary or unconstitutional.”
The Court also noted that the State had permitted participation through Joint Ventures and relaxed eligibility conditions to broaden participation. With respect to the reliance placed on earlier policy documents concerning unemployed engineers, the Court held that such policies merely reflected governmental intent and did not create an enforceable right compelling the State to structure tenders in a particular manner or provide reservation in contractual matters. The Court observed:
“It is also well settled that Courts cannot direct the State to frame tender conditions in a particular manner or impose reservation/allotment in contractual matters, as such directions would amount to encroaching upon the policy domain of the executive.”
Holding that no arbitrariness or mala fides had been established, the Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the tender process.
Case Title: Ritesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5041 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Aryan Sinha for the Petitioner. Mr. P.K. Shahi for the State.