Judicial review limits upheld; Court emphasizes deference to expert tender evaluations
In a pivotal judgment, the Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s UKS- Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Joint Venture) against the State of Bihar concerning a tender process managed by the Public Health Engineering Department. The petitioner challenged the decision to declare their technical bids unsuccessful for several tenders, arguing that the rejections were based on hyper-technical grounds and arbitrary interpretations of the eligibility criteria.
The bench, comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Ranjan Kumar Jha, emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, underscoring that courts should intervene only when the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide, or irrational. The court reiterated that the interpretation of tender conditions by the tendering authority is entitled to deference unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious.
The petitioner contended that their bids were unjustly disqualified due to alleged minor procedural defects, such as the non-submission of an affidavited JV agreement before a First-Class Magistrate, despite fulfilling substantive eligibility criteria. They also argued that the Tender Evaluation Committee failed to properly assess the collective experience of the Joint Venture members as per the Standard Bidding Document (SBD).
However, the court found no merit in these claims, noting that eligibility conditions form the foundation of the tender process and cannot be treated as mere procedural defects. It highlighted the findings of an internal enquiry report, which suggested irregularities in the evaluation process across multiple tenders but did not specifically vindicate the petitioner’s compliance with the eligibility criteria.
Quoting precedents from the Supreme Court, the judgment underscored that while courts should ensure that public procurement processes are conducted fairly and legally, they should not substitute their own judgment for that of the expert bodies unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide action.
In conclusion, the court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or perversity in the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee and dismissed the writ application. This decision underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in intervening in administrative decisions concerning public procurement, prioritizing the expertise and discretion of tendering authorities unless there is a manifest error in the decision-making process.
Bottom line:-
In tender-related matters, the court's scope of judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process for arbitrariness, mala fides, or perversity. The court should not substitute its own opinion for that of an expert body unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or irrational.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
