The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicial restraint in interfering with administrative actions, particularly in tender or contract matters, and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioners claim to be registered Contractors with the Respondent Department. In terms of e-NIT No. 35/PHEQ of 2020-21 dated 15th of February, 2021, the Respondent-Department invited e-enters for execution of various works detailed out in the tender notice. The tender notice, as stated, prescribed 2nd of March, 2021 as the last date for submission of bids and 3rd of March, 2021 as the time of opening of technical bids. In response to the aforesaid tender notice, the Petitioners, besides other eligible Contractors, are stated to have submitted their tenders/ bids along with all requisite documents before the Respondent-Department. It is pleaded that the tender documents of the Petitioners were complete in all respects and that the Petitioners were, thus expecting positive results therefrom. Thereafter, the technical bids were opened by the Respondent-Department, wherein, as stated, the tender documents of the Petitioners were found responsive and the process was initiated by the Respondent-Department for opening of financial bids. However, the Petitioner No.2 is stated to have filed a complaint before the Respondent No.4 with regard to the eligibility of the Respondent No.5, as a consequence whereof, a Committee was constituted vide Order dated 12th of April, 2021 and the process of allotment deferred. The Committee, on 26th of April, 2021, submitted report whereby the Respondent No.5 was held eligible to partake in the tendering process pursuant to the e-NIT in question. Subsequently, on 27th of April, 2021, the Respondent No.5 was, upon opening of financial bids, declared L1 and allotted the works put to tender in terms of e-NIT dated 15th of February, 2021. Feeling aggrieved of the report of the Committee constituted by the Respondent-Department qua eligibility of Respondent No.5 as well as the subsequent decision of the Respondent-Department to allot the works to Respondent No.5, the Petitioners have challenged the vires of the same through the medium of the instant Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr. Altaf Mehraj, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the report/ decision of the Committee constituted by the Respondent-Department; whereby the Respondent No.4 has been found eligible to participate in the tendering process and the subsequent allotment of works in favour of the Respondent No.5 pursuant to E-tender notice No.35/PHEQ of 2020-21 is result of colorable exercise of power on part of the Respondent-Department. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.2 had raised an extremely important issue of ineligibility of Respondent No.5 qua non-submission of requisite documents by the Respondent No.5 in tune with the terms and conditions of the tender notice in question, however, the same was not taken into consideration by the Committee constituted by the Respondent-Department for the purpose. It is pleaded that the impugned action of the Respondent-Department smacks of illegalities and malafides and, thus same deserves to be set at naught.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.

4. Admittedly, on the complaint of the Petitioner No.2 qua non-submission of requisite documents by the Respondent No.5 along with his tender document, the Respondent-Department constituted a Committee for the purpose prior to issuance of the final allotment order(s). The Committee, in its report, was of the opinion that the Respondent No.5/ L1 has placed on record all the requisite/ main documents in support of his bids and that the same are responsive. It was on the basis of such position that the Committee recommended the allotment of works in favour of the Respondent No.5/ L1. Once the Committee so constituted by the Respondent-Department in the matter of ascertaining the veracity of the complaint filed by the Petitioner No.2 against the eligibility of Respondent No.5 reported that the Respondent No.5