Judicial review in tender matters is limited to legality and procedural propriety; failure to meet eligibility criteria justifies bid rejection.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 09.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23477 of 2024. Appellant was the petitioner in the said Writ Petition.

2. Appellant is a C-class contractor, enlisted under the Chief Engineer, Southern Naval Command, Pune. He had participated in the tender invited by respondent No.1 in respect of a work titled “Completion of incomplete works for setting up single offices accommodation as a part of augmentation of infrastructure and facilities at INA, Ezhimala (phase II)”. The tender submitted by him was rejected vide Exhibit P9 stating that the number of enlisted contractors of eligible class are 8 and the bidder has not submitted required documents for upgradation to the eligible class i.e. A class. The appeal preferred by him before respondent No.2 was also rejected vide Exhibit P11 stating that he had failed to upload the requisite documents of upgradation criteria along with Cover 1 in terms of Note 2 of Appendix A to NIT as intimated by CE Zone. Aggrieved by such rejection of bid and dismissal of his appeal, the appellant had filed the W.P.(C) seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Exhibit P9 and Exhibit P11 ;

(ii) to declare that the petitioner is eligible to submit his bid in response to Exhibit P6 re-tender issued pursuant to Exhibit P1 ;

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1^st respondent to consider Exhibit P7 bid and open his price bid and award work to him if his is the lowest quoted bid;

(iv) to direct the 2^nd respondent to allow Exhibit P10 appeal;

(v) issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Exhibit P14 being illegal and arbitrary;

(vi) to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents ; and

(vii) to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Subsequently, taking note of the fact that Ext.P13 communication was issued, which revoked the technical evaluation uploaded earlier for the tender and thus Ext.P9 communication became irrelevant and infructuous and that respondent No.1 had proceeded with technical bid evaluation produced as Exhibit P14, appellant amended the Writ Petition, incorporating pleadings and prayer, to set aside Exhibit P14. He had inter alia alleged that only two out of the 11 technical bids were admitted and 5 out of the same were rejected for purported failure to submit tender extension validity though they met the criteria.

3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the petition, inter alia holding that, no illegality could be found in Exhibits P9 and P11 and that judicial review in the matter of tenders is confined to issues where any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety is committed by the decision making authority and to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism. It was held that the rejection of appellant's tender vide Exhibit P9 was mainly for the reason that he had failed to produce documents to establish his eligibility under Class A. The learned Single Judge also noted that there were 8 class A contractors who submitted bids and the appellant's bid could not have been entertained as per the mandates laid down in the tender. The learned Single Judge reasoned that the writ court is not a court of appeal and it cannot review the decision of the tendering authority and could only look into the decision-making process. Holding that the Court cannot declare the appellant as the person qualified when the tendering authority itself had found him ineligible, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred by the appellant.

4. Heard Sri.M.V.Amaresan, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.P.R.Ajith Kumar, C.G.C. and Sri.Deepu Thankan, Advocate for the 3^rd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment had confined consideration to Exhi