Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S.VENEGAVKAR
Arjun Adhar Swayam Rojgar Seva – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through the Government Pleader – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the State.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to challenge the work order dated 29.07.2025 issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.7 in respect of the tender process initiated for supply, installation and commissioning of a new gas-fired pet incinerator for dead animals at Padegaon, Ghankachra Prakriya Kendra. The petitioners have also challenged the tender notice and have prayed for a direction to respondent No.3 to issue a fresh tender notice. A further prayer is made for refund of the earnest money deposit paid by the petitioners.
4. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and petitioner No.2 is its Chairman. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 has been regularly participating in Government projects, has been taking part in tender processes, and has been executing such works in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure.
Lowest bidder has no right to public contract without essential eligibility compliance; judicial review limited to arbitrariness in process, not merits or substitution of authority's decision.
Lowest bidder has no vested right to contract; authority may cancel tender for valid reasons like cartel without malice; tender conditions not judicially reviewable unless arbitrary.
The court emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the tender process and held that the principles of judicial review apply to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism in the exercise of contr....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to legality and fairness; minor procedural lapses do not justify interference if public interest is served.
An employer may reject the lowest tender bid if justified by comparative analysis with benchmark bids, without creating a vested right for acceptance.
An unsuccessful bidder cannot challenge the award of a tender if disqualified in the technical evaluation, as they lack standing to do so.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
An unsuccessful bidder lacks standing to challenge the issuance of a Letter of Intent when disqualified for failing to meet mandatory requirements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
