Judicial restraint in reviewing tender processes; courts should not substitute administrative decisions unless shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. On the last date i.e. 14.07.2025, Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opp. party nos.2 & 3 produced the copies of the relevant contracts executed by the petitioner for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 along with the bid documents, which was filed by the petitioner along with the bid and further stated he has received written instruction that the petitioner, the bidder has failed to supply the relevant contract document in support of the supply contract for the financial year 2023-24 and the petitioner has only furnished the copies of invoices against supply of non- woven bags to private limited and public unlisted companies, which does not meet the requirements of Clause-18.8 of the tender document and therefore, the tender committee after careful evaluation of the bid documents of the petitioner, rejected the bid as per Clause-18.8 of the bid documents vide Ext.5 and those documents were handed over to Mr. B. Baivab, learned counsel for the petitioner and he sought time to obtain instruction on those documents.

3. Today, Mr. B. Baivab, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce the contract documents for the financial year 2023-24 and he fairly submits that the documents, which were handed over to him by Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opp. party nos.2 & 3 are the documents of the petitioner and he has not filed any additional document.

4. Mr. B. Baivab, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation is pending before the opp. party nos.2 & 3, which was filed by the petitioner for consideration, but Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opp. party nos.2 & 3 has disputed the same.

5. It is the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may not be qualified to participate in the next year bid since the technical bid has been rejected this year because of the non- availability of the contract documents for the financial year 2023-24.

6. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opp. party nos.2 & 3 submits that if the petitioner files the required documents in the future year, there is no question of the opp. party nos.2 & 3 in not considering the same in accordance with law.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India , (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651 while dealing with the tender matters has laid down the following principles in para 94, which reads as follows:-

“94. The principles deducible from the above are:

(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.

(2) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.

(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.

(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the