In public procurement, the rejection of a technical bid based on minor, curable deficiencies without providing the bidder an opportunity for clarification—where such opportunity is mandated by departmental circulars—violates the principles of fairness and transparency, rendering the administrative decision-making process arbitrary.

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

NAFR

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24/03/2026

1. Heard Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appears for the respondent No.1/State, and Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel appears for respondent No.2–Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–M/s B.R. Singh Bhadouriya, a partnership firm through its partner Dilip Kumar Bhadouriya, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of (i) the action dated 11.02.2026 whereby the technical bid of the petitioner came to be rejected on the alleged ground of deficiencies in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 of the pre-qualification document without issuance of any prior notice, opportunity of clarification or a reasoned order, (ii) the consequential bid-opening process dated 11.02.2026 and award of contract in favour of respondent No.3, and (iii) the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected in a mechanical and non-speaking manner. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that the entire tender process initiated by respondent No.2 for the work of widening of existing bituminous road within Jagdalpur Municipal limits stands vitiated on account of procedural impropriety, violation of principles of natural justice, non-compliance of binding departmental circulars and arbitrariness in decision-making, resulting in denial of a fair and level playing field to the petitioner despite it being otherwise eligible and financially competitive.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs:

“In view of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the action dated 11.02.2026 whereby the Petitioner’s Technical Bid was rejected on alleged deficiencies in Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 without prior notice, opportunity of clarification, and without issuance of a contemporaneous speaking order;

2. Quash and set aside the decision taken on 11.02.2026 awarding the subject tender in favour of Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the impugned bid-opening process;

3. Quash and set aside the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur, rejecting the Petitioner’s representation dated 17.02.2026;

4. Declare that the action of the Respondents in rejecting the Petitioner’s bid without adherence to binding procedural safeguards and without affording opportunity of clarification is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

5. Direct the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner’s Technical Bid in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of clarification and to proceed with the tender process strictly in compliance with principles of fairness and transparency;

6. Pending final disposal of the present writ petition, restrain the Respondents from issuing any work order or creating any third-party rights pursuant to the impugned award decision dated 11.02.2026;

7. Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

4. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the