Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Shekhar B. Saraf, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ
Vertel Digital Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. 2067 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jaideep Narain Mathur, Anupras Singh
For the Respondents: Shailendra Kumar Singh, Pankaj Khare, Rahul Kapoor, Anantika Singh, Shantanu Sharma, Utkarsh Singh, Sukrit Singh, Siddharth Mishra

In matters of public tender, courts should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere with the technical evaluation of bids unless the decision-making process is tainted by malafide, arbitrariness, or perversity, especially where public interest and technical quality are involved.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Tender process - Scope of judicial review - Rejection of technical bid - Petitioner disqualified based on suspension order from another State - Whether suspension order qualifies as blacklisting order amounting to disqualification - Court held that a simple suspension order pending inquiry without adherence to principles of natural justice does not equate to formal blacklisting - However, authorities acted in bonafide manner due to security concerns regarding quality of police equipment - Judicial review in tender matters is minimal unless malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality is demonstrated - Courts should not substitute expert technical evaluation with judicial opinion - Interference denied where tender process is complete and public interest and cost implications are considered. (Paras 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a bidder for supply of wireless equipment to the Uttar Pradesh Police, was disqualified at the technical bid stage following a suspension order issued by the Government of Maharashtra regarding quality issues. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order in the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the latter clarifying that the suspension order should not affect other tenders but not interfering with the ongoing process. The petitioner then challenged the U.P. State's rejection of their bid in the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that while the suspension order cannot be equated to a formal blacklisting order, the State authorities had not acted arbitrarily or with malafide intent in rejecting the petitioner's bid to protect the quality of sensitive police communication equipment. The Court emphasized that judicial restraint is necessary in technical tender matters.

Issues: Whether a suspension order by another state amounts to blacklisting and whether the judicial review of the technical rejection was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative decision in a tender, based on expert evaluation of valid concerns regarding a bidder's past performance and quality, does not warrant judicial interference absent proof of malafide or arbitrariness, particularly when the tender process has largely concluded.

Result: Writ petition disposed of; interim order vacated.

Table of Content
1. summary of events leading to the filing of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. distinction between a suspension order and a blacklisting order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. scope of judicial review and restraint in tender-related matters. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. final ruling and consequences for future tenders. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

Court No. - 3

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. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the Tender, wherein the last date for submission o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCHShekhar B. Saraf, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJVertel Digital Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusState of U.P. – RespondentWRIT - C No. 2067 of 2026

In matters of public tender, courts should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere with the technical evaluation of bids unless the decision-making process is tainted by malafide, arbitrariness, or perversity, especially where public interest and technical quality are involved.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Shekhar B. Saraf, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ
Vertel Digital Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. 2067 of 2026