A suspension order under inquiry does not equate to blacklisting; judicial review in tender matters is limited to ensuring no arbitrary actions against public interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. Objections to the application for vacation of interim order and objections to the application filed on behalf of intervenor- M/S Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. are taken on record.

(Order on Intervention/Impleadment Application (IA) No.2 of 2026.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

3. The present application seeking impleadment/intervention has been filed by the applicant/respondent-M/S Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., who were declared as the successful L-1 bidder on 30.01.2026.

4. We have perused the affidavit accompanying the intervention/impleadment application and find that sufficient cause has been made out for allowing the same.

5. Since, any order passed by this Court would have an impact on the rights that may have accrued in favour of the applicant, this Court deems the applicant to be a necessary party to this lis.

6. Accordingly, application for intervention/impleadment is allowed.

( Order on Writ Petition)

1. Heard Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anupras Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri Pankaj Khare, Additional C.S.C. and Shri Rahul Kapoor, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. Anantika Singh, S/Shri Shantanu Sharma, Utkarsh Singh, Sukrit Singh and Siddharth Mishra, learned counsels appearing for the intervenor/respondent and perused the materials available on record.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 passed by the Respondents-State. Apparently, vide the first order dated 23.02.2026, the technical bid of the petitioner with respect to procurement of various wireless equipments viz digital VHF Base/Mobile Transceiver sets, digital handheld VHF transceiver etc. for the Uttar Pradesh Police department, has been rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee and subsequently vide the second order dated 28.01.2026, the representation preferred by the petitioner against the first order of rejection i.e dated 23.01.2026 was also rejected. It is these two orders which has been sought to be interdicted by the petitioner and certain other consequential reliefs of seeking re- evaluation of their technical and financial bid as well as to permit them to participate in the tendering process has been prayed for in the present petition.

3. At the outset, it may be noted that admittedly, the tendering process has culminated with the declaration of M/s Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Limited as the Lowest bidder (L-1) on 30.01.2026, however before a contract could be entered between the said successful bidder and the respondent, a coordinate bench of this court vide an interim order dated 24.02.2026 had restrained the respondent from entering into the contract, till the next date of hearing, that is, on 06.04.2026. However, in view of an Application (IA No. 5/2026), filed by the learned counsel for the Respondent- State on 31.03.2026, the present matter was directed to be heard today i.e 01.04.2026 at 2:15 pm. and that is how the present matter has been taken up on board, and accordingly, with the consent of both the parties and keeping in view the urgency involved in the present Tender Matter, the present writ petition is being finally heard.

4. The facts of the present case relevant to the context lie in a narrow compass. Ad