Courts Cannot Re-Evaluate Technical Eligibility Determined By Expert Bodies Absent Mala Fides Or Patent Perversity: Patna High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha was hearing a writ petition seeking directions to declare the petitioner-joint venture technically successful in the bid evaluation process relating to PHED Tender Nos. 08/2024-25, 09/2024-25 and 13/2024-25 and to consider its financial bids, which had been rejected on alleged hyper-technical grounds.

The petitioner, a Joint Venture comprising Umakant Singh and M/s Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd., had participated in tenders floated by the Public Health Engineering Department for various groups in Kishanganj, Forbesganj and Katihar. Its technical bids were declared unsuccessful on the ground of non-compliance with certain conditions contained in the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) governing joint ventures and eligibility criteria.

The petitioner contended that all requisite documents had been uploaded and that the technical bid under NIT No. 08/2024-25 had been rejected on the erroneous ground that the Joint Venture Agreement was not attested by a First Class Magistrate, despite no such requirement being contained either in the NIT or in the SBD. With respect to NIT Nos. 09/2024-25 and 13/2024-25, it was argued that the constituent members of the Joint Venture collectively satisfied the experience requirements prescribed under Clauses 4.5A(b) and 4.5A(c), and that there had been substantial compliance with all tender conditions.

The respondents, however, submitted that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria under Clauses 4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the Instructions to Bidders. It was contended that a Joint Venture was required to collectively satisfy the requirements under Clauses 4.2, 4.5(A), 4.5(B), 4.7 and 4.8, and that scrutiny of the bid documents revealed non-compliance with those provisions.

The respondents further relied upon an enquiry report dated 08.09.2025, which found that similarly situated bidders had not been treated uniformly during technical evaluation and recommended cancellation of the tender process and issuance of fresh tenders. The principal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility requirements under Clauses 4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the Standard Bidding Document and whether its technical disqualification warranted interference.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that the determination of whether a bidder satisfies technical and eligibility conditions falls squarely within the domain of expert bodies entrusted with evaluating bids. The Bench observed:

“Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or patently perverse, the Court would be slow to substitute its own assessment for that of the Tender Evaluation Committee.”

The Court noted that Clause 4.4.5(iv), governing Joint Ventures, specifically required collective compliance with several eligibility provisions contained in the Instructions to Bidders. It found that the Tender Evaluation Committee had examined the documents submitted by the petitioner and concluded that the requisite eligibility requirements had not been met.

The Court further held that the enquiry committee's recommendation for cancellation and re-tendering did not establish that the petitioner had, in fact, satisfied the eligibility conditions. According to the Bench:

“Merely because the Committee recommended cancellation and re-tendering of the works would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was wrongly declared technically disqualified or that it satisfied the eligibility criteria under the tender conditions.”

Reiterating the settled principles governing judicial review in contractual matters, the Court relied upon Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, and observed that courts are concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. The Court held:

“Mere disagreement with the assessment of eligibility conditions by the expert body cannot be a ground for this Court to undertake a fresh evaluation of the bid documents.”

Finding no material to suggest mala fides, arbitrariness or patent perversity in the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee, the Court declined to interfere with the petitioner's technical disqualification and answered the issue against the petitioner.

Case Title: M/s UKS-Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13745 of 2025

Appearance: Mr. Pramod Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma for the Respondents.