Courts should exercise restraint in contractual matters, refraining from meddling unless there's clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. In the first session, when the matter was taken up for hearing and it was pointed out to the learned advocate Mr.Rajeshkumar S. Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, that the prayers made in the writ petition have become infructuous since the post-opening of Price Bid of the tender on 21.05.2025, the process of Reverse Auction was already conducted between 22.05.2025 at 4:00 p.m. to 23.05.2025 at 4:00 p.m, and after the completion of the Reverse Auction process and due approval of the recommendation by the Tender Committee of IOCL, the subject Tender has been awarded to three technically and financially qualified bidders and GeM contracts have been issued in their favour on 24.05.2025; he requested that the matter to be placed in the second session to take instructions, as to whether he would withdraw or invite a reasoned order.

2. In the second session, learned advocate Mr.Mishra requested for hearing the matter and sought a reasoned order.

3. Thus, despite the prayers made in the writ petition having become ineffectual and in light of the settled proposition of law, about restricted interference of the Courts in contractual matters, and looking to the stage of the present matter, coupled with the fact that three successful bidders are not the parties to the writ petition; the learned advocate Mr.Mishra has pressed for a reasoned order.

4. The respondents have also annexed the contract dated 24.05.2025 in favour of Ambedkar Construction, Kalinga Insulation & Radiant Hitech Engineering Private Limited. The respondent no.2 in its affidavit dated 26.05.2025, had categorically made a statement that three successful bidders may be made party respondents. This fact was also pointed out to learned advocate Mr.Mishra, and it was conveyed to him that no orders can be passed in their absence, but still he insisted for a reasoned order. When it was pointed out by this Court to the learned advocate Mr.Mishra, that the petitioner can avail and alternative remedy, however, our suggestion is also turned down.

5. During the course of the hearing, it was noticed by us that in fact, the petitioner has tried to improve upon the case from the original case, which has been canvassed in the memo of the petition.

6. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers : -

“25. b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities to quash and set aside the communication at Annexure A and thereby qualify the applicant to bid the Bid Number GEM/2025/B/5921568 on 12.02.2025 bearing tender number 9030C25A42 (Annexure B) and thereby directions to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the above-mentioned bid;

c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or other appropriate writ, thereby qualify the applicant to bid the Bid Number GEM/2025/B/5921568 on 12.02.2025 bearing tender number 9030C25A42 (at Annexure B) and thereby directions to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the above-mentioned bid.

7. We expected from the learned advocate Mr.Mishra, appearing for the petitioner to be fair to this Court and point out the legal precedent set by the judgments of the Supreme Court, however instead of pointing out the law, he pointed out the various clauses of the Bid Document and also the inter se communications. He has not applied hs mind as to whether in view of the subsequent development of award o