Judicial review of tender processes is limited to ensuring fairness and transparency. Tendering authorities may correct inadvertent errors in technical evaluations during the stipulated process window, provided no post-deadline documents are introduced and the decision-making process remains rational and free from mala fide intent.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the writ petitioner seeking cancellation of the bid of the respondent no. 4, who has been declared as the lowest bidder [L-1] in a tender process initiated by a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 23.08.2025 by the respondent National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited [NHIDCL]. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for a direction to award the contract-work under reference to the petitioner by declaring it as the L-1 bidder.

2. The relevant and necessary facts leading to the institution of the writ petition are required to be exposited at first. By a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 23.08.2025, the NHIDCL invited bids from companies, firms, agencies, individuals having past experience in providing vehicles to Government departments/public sector undertakings, etc. under a two-bid system comprising of a technical bid and a financial bid. In the NIT, the subject of the tender [hereinafter also referred as ‘the Contract-Work’, at places, for easy reference] was mentioned as under:

‘Providing & supplying of 32 nos. vehicles [SUV such as Innova Hy- Cross ZX/Toyota Fortuner] Innova Crysta, Scorpio, Bolero or equivalent] on monthly basis for Regional Office, PMUs and its Site Offices under RO - Guwahati, NHIDCL in the State of Assam.’

3. It was mentioned that the vehicles, thirty two in nos., would be in need for each Project Management Unit [PMU], Site Offices and Regional Office, Guwahati for the NHIDCL, a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways [MoRT&H], Government of India [GoI], initially for a term of two years from the date of contract award, which might be extended based on performance. The specifications of the thirty two vehicles required for the Contract-Work was also mentioned in the NIT.

4. It was mentioned that the technical bid and financial bid of the bidders would be opened in the presence of authorized representatives. The time schedule for the tender process was mentioned in detail in the NIT. In Clause 1.3 of the Letter of Invitation [LoI], it was mentioned that the proposals were invited through Government e-Market Place [GeM] [on-line bid submission] for assignment. Clause 1.4 of the LoI provided that financial proposals would be opened only for the firms found to be technically responsive. The selection of the assignment would be done through Least Cost System i.e. the lowest quoted bidder would be selected. Clause 2.1 and Clause 2.2 of the LoI had outlined the documents required to be submitted in support of the technical bid.

5. It was mentioned in Clause 4 of the NIT that none of the staff of NHIDCL, their relatives or any of the contractor/vendor/agencies assigned work/contract in NHIDCL would be considered for bidding for hiring of vehicles. A certificate in this regard should be furnished by the bidder along with technical bid.

6. Responding to the NIT, a total of thirteen nos. of bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, submitted their bids on-line. After the expiry of on-line bid submission time on the scheduled date, the technical bids of the participant bidders were opened in the Government e-Market Place [GeM] portal. Upon opening of the technical bids, the Bid Ev