Allahabad High Court Upholds Zoo Food Tender to Lowest Rate Bidder Over Quantity Argument

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award of a food supply contract for the Nawab Wazid Ali Shah Zoological Garden, Lucknow, ruling that the tendering authority was correct in selecting the bidder offering the lowest overall rates for the entire list of materials, without factoring in estimated monthly quantities.

A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the petitioner, M/s Divya Enterprises, had consented to the evaluation methodology by participating in the tender without any pre-bid query and that the court would not substitute its own interpretation of the tender conditions for that of the employer.

The Tender and the Dispute

The Lucknow Zoo floated an e-tender on 24 April 2026 for the supply of 21 food articles for wild animals for the financial year 2026-27. Bidders were required to quote a rate per kilogram for each item. A three-member committee evaluated the bids on 2 July 2026, calculating the cumulative rate of all items for each bidder. The petitioner’s total came to Rs.1,324.44, while respondent no.4 (the successful bidder) quoted Rs.539, making it the L-1 bidder. A work order was issued on 8 July 2026.

M/s Divya Enterprises approached the High Court under Article 226, arguing that the authority should have considered the estimated monthly quantity for each article along with the rates, and that doing so would have changed the outcome. It sought re-evaluation of the financial bids.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioner contended that Clause 15 of the tender document provided an estimated monthly quantity for each item, and that the evaluation should have multiplied those quantities by the rates to determine the lowest total cost. Without that exercise, the selection of L-1 was flawed.

Respondents, including the State and the successful bidder, countered that Clause 10 clearly stated the tender would be accepted on the basis of the lowest overall rates quoted for the complete list of materials in the Bill of Quantities. They argued that Clause 16 made the monthly estimates conditional, as demand could vary substantially and some items might not be ordered at all. The evaluation methodology was consistent with past practice and the petitioner had accepted it by participating.

Court’s Legal Analysis

The High Court found the petitioner’s argument “attractive at first blush” but rejected it upon deeper scrutiny. The bench examined the relevant clauses:

  • Clause 9 : All taxes were to be included in the quoted rates, with no additional payments.
  • Clause 10 : The tender was to be accepted based on the “total minimum value quoted” for the complete list.
  • Clause 14 : Delivery costs to the zoo store were to be included.
  • Clause 15 : Provided monthly estimated quantities but was qualified by Clause 16 , which stated that demand could be “substantially varied” and that no compensation would be payable if certain materials were not ordered.

The court concluded: “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.”

The bench relied on a series of Supreme Court precedents emphasizing limited judicial interference in tender matters. In Central Coalfields Ltd v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) (2016) 8 SCC 622, the Court held that it is primarily for the author of the tender document to decide the essentiality of a condition. In Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Court warned against courts substituting their own commercial judgment.

The High Court also cited its own recent decision in Ranjana Pandey v. State of U.P. (decided 21 August 2026 in Writ-C No. 6379 of 2026), which laid down that interference is warranted only where overwhelming public interest, mala fides, or manifest arbitrariness is demonstrated.

Key Observations

The court made several notable observations:

  • “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.”

  • “The case set up by the petitioner at this stage, i.e. after the L-1 bidder has been selected, is highly belated. If the petitioner was of the view that the terms and conditions were unfair… he ought to have approached this Court before participating in the tender process.”

  • “The interpretation of the terms and conditions of the tender would primarily fall within the domain of its author, and unless such interpretation is found to be perverse, the Writ Court would not interfere.”

Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it devoid of merit. No order as to costs was made.

The ruling reinforces the principle that in public procurement, the tendering authority’s interpretation of its own conditions will be respected unless arbitrary. Bidders who participate without challenging the evaluation methodology cannot later complain when it is applied against them. The decision also underscores that courts will not second-guess commercial decisions simply because an alternative interpretation is possible.