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.

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. It is their case that they possess the necessary licences, certificates and permissions required for participation in the tender in question. The record, as pleaded by the petitioners, shows that on 15.01.2025 respondent No.4 floated a tender notice on the Government portal for the aforesaid work. The tender was published as an open tender under the service category. The estimated value of the tender was shown as Rs.76,42,970/-. The petitioners submitted their bid in the said tender process. According to them, their financial bid was 5.20% below the tender amount and came to Rs.72,45,535.56. The petitioners further state that by communication dated 17.02.2025 they were called upon to submit documents relating to PWD electrical certificate and EPFO certificate for further scrutiny, and that they furnished the necessary documents by reply dated 18.02.2025. It is their case that by doing so they had complied with all requirements called for by the authorities. The petitioners have then stated that the tender bids were opened on 05.03.2025 and that there were in all four bidders whose names were shown on the portal. According to the petitioners, all four bids were accepted for further process and among those four bidders, the petitioners’ bid was the lowest. Based on this, it is contended that petitioner No.1 ought to have been declared the successful bidder and the work order ought to have been issued in its favour. The grievance of the petitioners is that, instead of doing so, respondent No.3 issued the work order dated 29.07.2025 in favour of respondent No.7. The petitioners allege that the said action is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing award of public contracts.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that once the petitioners were the lowest bidder among the selected bidders, the authorities were not justified in overlooking their bid. He submitted that the petitioners had responded to all requisitions raised by the authorities and that no valid reason existed for denying the contract to them. He further argued that the action of the authorities shows arbitrariness and a biased attitude against the petitioners. It was submitted that if a bidder is found eligible for participation and its financial bid is the lowest, the authority should ordinarily