Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 913

2026 BHC(NAG) 6315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH : NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
M/s G.H. Khandelwal - Appellant
Versus
Amravati Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Amravati - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 293 of 2026
Decided On : 23-04-2026
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Radhika Bajaj, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate Shri B.L. Borikar, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand Jaiswal, Radhika Bajaj
For the Respondents: J.B. Kasat, B.L. Borikar

In tender matters, courts should exercise judicial restraint and defer to the tendering authority's interpretation of tender conditions, provided the decision-making process is transparent, reasonable, and free from manifest arbitrariness or mala fides.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 19(1)(g) - Tender Process - Eligibility Criteria - Interpretation of Tender Conditions - Judicial Review - Petitioner’s bid rejected for alleged failure to meet experience criteria of executing maintenance work worth one crore in a single financial year - Court held that the author of the tender document is the best judge of its requirements - Interpretation of Clause 3(ज) by the authority as requiring execution in a single year not found to be irrational or arbitrary - Court will not substitute its own view for that of the expert body unless the decision is perverse or mala fide. (Paras 31, 33, 40, 41)

(B) Tender Process - Cartelization - Allegation of collusion based on familial relationship between two bidders and shared resources - Held that mere relationship does not establish cartelization in the absence of substantive evidence of bid-rigging or manipulation - Allegations remained in the realm of conjecture. (Paras 47-49)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its technical bid for a road maintenance contract. The respondent corporation rejected the bid on the ground that the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility condition of having executed similar work worth Rs. 1 crore in a single financial year. The petitioner contended that the condition allowed for cumulative work over three years and alleged that the successful bidder engaged in cartelization with a related entity.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the tender evaluation committee followed a fair process, including granting an opportunity to cure defects. The interpretation of tender conditions by the authorities was reasonable and not arbitrary. The allegations of cartelization andmala fides were unsubstantiated.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the technical bid was arbitrary; whether the tender condition required cumulative experience or single-year experience; and whether the tender process was vitiated by cartelization.

Ratio Decidendi: In contractual matters, courts should exercise restraint and not interfere with the interpretation of tender conditions by the tendering authority unless the decision is demonstrably perverse, irrational, or violates constitutional safeguards.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and tender background regarding the challenge of bid rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner's contentions regarding tender eligibility interpretation and collusion (cartelization). (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. respondents' arguments supporting the fairness and legality of the evaluation process. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. established legal principles concerning judicial restraint and interpretative deference in public procurement. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. court’s assessment of technical document evaluation, natural justice, and the absence of evidence for cartelization. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. final reasoning and order confirming the dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. (Para 53 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

(PER : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties, and the matter has been heard finally at the admission stage.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent no.1 – Amravati Municipal Corporation in respect of e-tender bearing No. 2025_AMC_1253538_1, for the work of maintenance and repair of roads within municipal limits of Amravati, whereby the technical bid submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected and the bid of respondent no.4 was found responsive and taken forward for opening of the financial bid. The petitioner calls in question the rejection of its technical bid as well as the consequential acceptance and further processing of the bid of respondent no.4. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

a) quash and set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid by the respondent authorities vide Tender Summary Report dated 15-12-2025 (Annexure No. B);

b) quash and set aside the acceptance and further processing of the bid of Respondent No. 4 vide Tender Summary BOQ Comparative Chart dated 15-12-2025 (Annexure No. - B)

c) declare that the participation of respondent No. 4 along with his father’s proprietary concern constitutes cartelisation and is impermissible in law;

d) direct respondents No. 1 to 3 to hold that the petitioner’s bid is technically sound and is in accordance with law and tender conditions;

e) direct respondents No.1 to 3 to open the financial bid of the petitioner and declare it to be the lowest bidder and grant the tender to the petitioner ;

f) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, restrain the respondents from issuing any work order to the respondent No. 4 pursuant to the impugned tender;

g) grand ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (f);

h) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in execution of civil contracts, particularly road construction, maintenance and allied infrastructure works. It is duly registered as a Class IV contractor with the Public Works Division, Amravati, Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra as well as Amravati Municipal Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that it has successfully completed several municipal contracts of similar nature in the past and holds valid work completion certificate issued by the said authority.

4. Respondent No.1 issued an e-tender bearing Tender ID 2025_AMC_1253538_1, pursuant to Tender Notice No. 64/2025 dated 28.11.2025 for the work titled as “Maintenance for road repair patches potholes CC road and WBM road at various places in Zone Nos. 1, 2, 3 ,4 & 5 Amravati”. The estimated cost of the work was approximately Rs. 1.59 crores and the stipulated period for completion was three months. The work order prescribed certain eligibility conditions which included prior experience and availability of specialized machinery. The tender was floated on the Mahara

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 913

In tender matters, courts should exercise judicial restraint and defer to the tendering authority's interpretation of tender conditions, provided the decision-making process is transparent, reasonable, and free from manifest arbitrariness or mala fides.

Cases Referred (4)