Judicial review of tender decisions is narrow, allowing authorities to decide without court-imposed restrictions, provided they adhere to tender conditions.

JUDGMENT:

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 07.11.2025 in W.P.No.16559 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 herein. The Writ Petition was filed for a Writ of Mandamus against the respondent No.2/The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (‘IOCL’) with reference to proceedings dated 06.06.2025 by which IOCL upheld the cancellation of the Letter of Acceptance (‘LoA’) dated 20.02.2025 issued to the writ petitioner. The appellant herein was awarded a Work Order on 18.08.2025 after cancellation of the LoA issued in favour of the writ petitioner.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by upholding the cancellation of the LoA/Contract being in violation of an earlier order passed by another learned Single Judge on 07.05.2025. The order dated 07.05.2025 was passed in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein (W.P.No.15034 of 2025). By the impugned order dated 07.11.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Speaking Order passed by IOCL on 06.06.2025 and directed IOCL to take necessary action for permitting the writ petitioner to continue with its contractual obligations as per the LoA and Work Order.

3. The appellant, who was awarded the work on 18.08.2025, is aggrieved by the impugned order and has challenged the same in the present Appeal.

4. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/IOCL.

5. The appellant and IOCL assail the impugned order on the ground that the learned Single Judge reinstated the writ petitioner solely on the earlier order dated 07.05.2025. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/IOCL submit that the earlier order disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 by directing IOCL to consider the grievance of the writ petitioner as expressed in its representation dated 01.04.2025 and pass an appropriate order within a specific time frame after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge re-read the conditions in the tender documents in favour of the writ petitioner which a Writ Court cannot be permitted to do. Counsel refer to several documents showing that the writ petitioner admitted to the delay in complying with the terms of the tender.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/the respondent No.1 herein seeks to sustain the impugned order on the ground that IOCL acted in haste in passing the Speaking Order dated 06.06.2025 which was in violation of the orders of status-quo granted in the first round of litigation. Senior Counsel lays emphasis on the order dated 07.05.2025 to urge that the learned Single Judge had opined on the action of IOCL being arbitrary and that such opinion could not be disturbed by IOCL by way of the Speaking Order dated 06.06.2025. In essence, Senior Counsel submits that IOCL reiterated its earlier decision dated 01.04.2025 in cancelling the LoA issued in favour of the writ petitioner.

7. We have considered the oral as well as written submissions made on behalf of the parties and considered the relevant material which have been placed on record.

8. A brief time