IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Gopal Kumar s/o Kedar Prasad Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20584 of 2025
Decided on : 02-04-2026
Government Contract – Tender – Disqualification from technical bid stage – Expression 'existing commitment' in Combined Model Bidding Document refers to a subsisting and enforceable obligation which has direct bearing on bidder's capacity to execute work for which tender has been issued – In a case where work has already been completed by another scheme, it cannot be said to be included within meaning of 'existing commitment/ongoing work' – Work which has already been constructed by another scheme cannot be said to be included in proper disclosure and transparency – Delay in approval is attributable to respondent authorities and cannot be put against petitioner – In matters relating to award of contracts, scope of judicial review is limited – However, decision making process must be fair, reasonable, and free from arbitrariness – Impugned decisions set aside – Writ Petition allowed. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 29)
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"i. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned decision/order dated 06.10.2025 and 02.12.2025 passed by the Technical Evaluation Committee, Rural Works Department whereby the Petitioner's technical bid submitted under Notice Inviting Tender Bearing No. RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025- 26 Dated 28.07.2025 for construction and six year operation & management including surface renewal for rural road/bridge under component of Sulabh Samparakta Yojana (SSY) described as 'Konipar Baba Sthan se Variyarpur Tak aur Gopalpari ka Konipur PWD Sadak tak Path Nirman(Tender ID-143842) has been arbitrarily, illegally and without authority of law disqualified from the technical bid stage.
ii. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to Declare the Petitioner, technically qualified for participation in the tender process under Notice Inviting Tender Bearing No. RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025-26 Dated 28.07.2025 for construction and six year operation & management including surface renewal for rural road/bridge under component of Sulabh Samparakta Yojana (SSY) described as 'Konipar Baba Sthan se Variyarpur Tak aur Gopalpari ka Konipur PWD Sadak tak Path Nirman (Tender ID-143842) and to include the Petitioner's bid in the financial bid evaluation stage of the tender process without any further delay.
iii. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, for declaration of respondent no.11 to be the lowest bidder Notice Inviting Tender Bearing No. RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025-26 Dated 28.07.2025 for construction and six year operation & management including surface renewal for rural road/bridge under component of Sulabh Samparakta Yojana(SSY) described as 'Konipar Baba Sthan se Variyarpur Tak aur Gopalpari ka Konipur PWD Sadak tak Path Nirman'(Tender ID-143842) to be illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and void ab initio, being the outcome of a tainted and procedurally defective evaluation process. iv. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the Petitioner's bid by declaring the Petitioner technically qualified, open the Petitioner's financial bid, and thereafter award the tender in favour of the Petitioner.
v. To direct the Respondents restraining them from giving effect to or executing any work order/contract agreement pending final adjudication of the present writ petition.
vi. Any other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 28.07.2025 bearing No. RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025-26 for construction and six-year operation and maintenance of a rural road/bridge project under the Sulabh Samparakta Yojana (SSY). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted its bid within the stipulated time. Upon evaluation of technical bids, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, in its meeting dated 08.09.2025, declared the petitioner technically qualified.
4. Subsequently, a complaint dated 13.09.2025 was submitted by another bidder alleging non-disclosure of certain prior work by the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, a show cause notice dated 16.09.2025 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 18.09.2025 along with supporting materials, stating inter alia that the work referred to in the complaint had already been proposed to be dropped by the competent authority and did not constitute an existing or ongoing commitment as on the date of bid submissi






The court upheld the decision of the official respondents to declare the petitioner non-responsive, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the tendering process and the application of natural ....
The rejection of a bid must be based on relevant and material factors, and the decision-making process should not consider extraneous or irrelevant factors.
Rule 23(16)(iv) of Assam Public Procurement Act, 2020 is reproduced Bidders securing specified minimum percent of marks or having fulfilled specific minimum achievement norms as fixed may be consider....
In tender matters, judicial review is limited; courts defer to tender authority's bid responsiveness assessment unless arbitrary, mala fide or perverse, prioritizing public interest in infrastructure....
Judicial review in tender matters limited to arbitrariness or mala fides; courts defer to authority's bid compliance assessment, refusing substitution unless perverse.
The court upheld that the authority's interpretation of RFP criteria for bid evaluation is final, emphasizing that nomenclature of a project does not solely determine eligibility.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.