Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited – Respondent
WPC No. 1368 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Mr. Hari Agrawal
For the Respondents: Mr. Achyut Tiwari

Judicial review in contractual/tender matters is limited to the decision-making process, not the merits; interference is only warranted when the process is vitiated by patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural impropriety, respecting the discretion of expert bodies in technical evaluations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 - Tender matters - Judicial review Scope of - Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decisions of the administrative or expert bodies in such matters. Judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself - Interference is warranted only in cases where the process is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, or procedural impropriety of such a degree that it shocks the conscience of the Court. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a participator in a limited tender issued by the respondent company for hydraulic motor services, challenged the eligibility of a competing bidder (respondent no. 5), alleging that it did not meet the mandatory financial credential requirements of three years experience. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to disqualify the competitor and direct authorities to decide on its previous representations.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the expert committee's evaluation of tender eligibility falls within the administrative domain and should not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any lack of transparency, arbitrariness, or infringement of fundamental rights, and the court refused to act as an appellate body over the tendering authority's expertise.

Issues: Whether the court should interfere in the tender evaluation process at an intermediate stage and whether the respondent company's decision to qualify a competing bidder was arbitrary or discriminatory.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review in government contracts is limited to the decision-making process; absent manifest illegality or perversity, courts must exercise restraint to avoid derailing public procurement processes.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and alleged tender grievances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. submissions and contentions of the parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's findings on the limited scope of judicial review in public tender matters. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners	: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 4	: Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

27.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :-

“a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities concerned pertaining to the instant case for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of the case.

b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing & setting aside the act of the Respondent authorities, whereby they found/held Respondent no. 5 to be commercially & technically qualified and eligible to participate in the further tender/bidding process including the Reverse Live Auction, in the Tender Notice No.TN-366/25-26, Tender No. MW-451/25-26 (Rfx No.8100047360) [forms part of Annexure P-2 (Colly)].

c. In the alternate to be above (b), a writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the Respondent authorities to decide upon commercial & technical qualification of the Respondent no. 5 afresh, strictly in accordance with the Tender qualifications and pre-requisites thereof as mentioned in Tender Notice No.TN-366/25-26, Tender No. MW-451/25-26 (Rfx No.8100047360) [forms part of Annexure P-2 (Colly)].

d. the A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the Respondent authorities to decide upon representations/objections [Annexure P-3 & Annexure P-6(Colly)] filed by the Petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

e. Cost of the proceedings.

f. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner No.1 is a duly incorporated Private Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the manufacturing of hydraulic motors under the brand “Mascot Drives” for over 25 years, and is represented through its authorized representative, Petitioner No.2. The Respondent authorities, being instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The Respondent No.1 issued a limited tender dated 10.11.2025 inviting bids for reconditioning and testing of hydraulic motors. The Petitioner participated in the said tender process while consistently objecting to the arbitrary practice of issuing limited tenders and highlighting the alleged ineligibility and lack of credentials of Respondent No.5, a recently incorporated entity (17.03.2023), through various representations.

5. Despite clear tender conditions requiring bidders to furnish audited financial statements and turnover certificates for the preceding three financial years, Respondent No.5, not having completed the requisite period since its incorporation, was prima facie ineligible and liable to be technically disqualified. However, the Respondent authorities failed to consider or decide the objections raised by the Petitioner and proceeded with the tender process.

6. Subsequently, the Petitioner was declared technically qualified, and its financial bid was opened. Shockingly, Respondent No.5 was also permitted to proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JM/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited – AppellantVersusChhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited – RespondentWPC No. 1368 of 2026

Judicial review in contractual/tender matters is limited to the decision-making process, not the merits; interference is only warranted when the process is vitiated by patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural impropriety, respecting the discretion of expert bodies in technical evaluations.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
M/s Maha Hydraulics Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited – Respondent
WPC No. 1368 of 2026