Tendering Authority's interpretation of its own tender conditions prevails; suppression of material facts results in disqualification.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge on 15.12.2025 in W.P. No.23084 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 herein (M/s. Leotech Process) for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the action of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 therein (South Central Railway, Secunderabad) in qualifying the appellant in respect of a Tender Notice dated 15.05.2025 as being illegal and contrary. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the qualification of the appellant in the tender process and directed the respondent Nos.2 to 6/South Central Railway to take further steps strictly in accordance with the Tender Conditions and law.

2. The appellant was the respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition whose selection/qualification in the Tender was set aside. The appellant has hence preferred the present Writ Appeal.

3. The e-Tender Document dated 15.05.2025 issued by respondent No.6/the Chief Environment and Housekeeping Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, was the subject-matter of the Writ Petition related to a Custom Bid for Services for collection of soiled linen from coaches, transportation to laundry, washing, drying, ironing and delivery of packed linen items and other items. Following the e-Tender procedure, the official respondents qualified the appellant for the Contract. However, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was disqualified under Clause 2.8 of the e-Tender Document. Aggrieved by the said disqualification, the respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the decision of the South Central Railways to qualify and select the appellant. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the appellant’s qualification via the impugned order.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order is required to be interfered with as it is a settled principle of law that the Tendering Authority is the best Judge of the interpretation of its own Tender conditions and the Writ Court should accept such interpretation given by the Authority. Senior Counsel also submits that the Writ Court should exercise Judicial restrain and refrain from substituting its own view from that of the Tendering Authority, even if an alternative interpretation is possible, provided the decision is not manifestly, arbitrary or mala fide. It is also submitted that Clause 2.8(iii) of the e-Tender Document dated 15.05.2025 envisages disqualification of a Contractor from participating in the bidding for services in a Railway Division under clause 2.8 (iii) (a) specifies that if any previous contract held by the Tenderer, or any of its constituents, had been terminated under clause 7.4 in that specific Division, within two years from the date of submission of bids. Senior Counsel further submits that the appellant’s Contract had been terminated by the Delhi Division of the Northern Railway and not by the South Central Railway, as such, the appellant is not disqualified from participating in the present Tender as per Clause 2.8(iii) of the e-Tender Document.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner places Clause 2.8(iii) of the e-Tender condition to urge that the appellant was under an obligation to disclose the fact of termination of its earlier Contract with t