The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters, emphasizing the need for valid reasons and non-arbitrariness in the decision-making process. It also highlights the requirement for state authorities' actions to be reasonable, fair, and in the public interest.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for declaring the action of respondent No.2 illegal for not allotting the work for appointment of Transport Contractor (TC) for TC at Malerkotla to the petitioner being the lowest bidder in the tender enquiry dated 8.2.2016 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.2; to direct respondent No.2 to allot the work for TC Malerkotla to the petitioner being L1 in the tender enquiry, Annexure P-4 and to direct respondent No.2 not to issue fresh enquiry for re-inviting tenders for appointment of TC at Malerkotla.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Food Corporation of India (FCI) vide notice dated 14.8.2015 had invited tenders for the appointment of Transport Contract (TC) at Malerkotla accompanied with instructions for online bid submission. The said tender was subject to the decision of CWP No. 23472 of 2015. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) and set aside the work order issued in favour of respondent No.3. However, the liberty was granted to respondents No.1 and 2 to invite fresh bids and enter into adhoc agreements if necessary in the meantime. In pursuance thereto, respondent No.2 invited fresh tenders on 8.2.2016 (Annexure P-4) accompanied with instruction for online bid submission. The petitioner submitted its bid vide letter dated 5.2.2016 (Annexure P-2) for the appointment of TC at Malerkotla. Respondent No.3 also submitted its bid vide letter dated 5.2.2016 (Annexure P-3). The tender for appointment of TC was governed by the instructions, Annexure P-5, issued by respondent No.1. In response to the instructions issued by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the petitioner submitted the requisite documents along with the forwarding letter. The technical bids of the petitioner and respondent No.3 were found valid and they were found eligible for the opening of the financial bid. The petitioner submitted the price bid dated 5.2.2016 (Annexure P-6) at 76% Above Schedule of Rates (ASOR) whereas respondent No.3 quoted its price bid dated 5.2.2016 (Annexure P-7) at 86% ASOR. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 should have allotted the work of TC at Malerkotla to the petitioner being the lowest bidder (L1). However, respondent No.2 has not allotted the work to the petitioner till date and wanted to issue a fresh tender process on the ground that the earlier price as quoted by the petitioner vide tender dated 14.8.2015 was much less than the price quoted now. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 8.4.2016 (Annexure P- 8) to respondents No.1 and 2 for the allotment of the work of TC at Malerkotla, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Upon notice of motion having been issued, respondents No.1 and 2 filed written statement controverting the averments made in the writ petition whereas respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit. It was pleaded by respondents No.1 and 2 that the petitioner and respondent No.3 applied for a tender for TC at Malerkotla vide tender enquiry dated 8.2.2016. During the process of technical evaluation, two writ petitions were filed which were disposed of on their statement that they would look into the objections raised by the petitioners in the said writ petitions. Thereafter, all the technical bids were evaluated properly and both the bidders were found technically qualified. The speaking orders were passed on 1.4.2016 and on the said date, the financial bids of both the bidders were opened. The price bid of the petitioner was 76% ASOR whereas respondent No.3 was 86% ASOR. On finding the rate not to be viable as quoted by the lowest bidder, i.e. the petitioner, the competent authority had rightly scrapped the tender on 8.4.2016 and