Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16630

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Fs And T Electricals – Appellant
Versus
State Of Mizoram – Respondent
WP(C)/158/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kartik Jain
For the Respondents: Biswajit Deb, Lalnunhlui, A. R. Malhotra

In tender matters, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the decision-making process. Courts must exercise restraint, refusing to substitute their own expertise for that of the employer unless the process is found to be arbitrary, mala-fide, or irrational, particularly where the bidder failed to meet mandatory tender criteria.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review in contractual matters - Scope and extent - Courts should maintain restraint and not interfere with the decision of the employer unless the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala-fide, or irrational - Role of the Court is limited to examination of the decision-making process and not the decision itself - If two interpretations are possible, the interpretation of the employer must be accepted. (Paras 16-18)

(B) Tender process - Eligibility criteria - Failure to submit complete documentation, such as a joint venture agreement with required signatories, renders a bid non-responsive and liable to be summarily rejected - Financial soundness must be established at the stage of tender submission, not via subsequent documents provided as an afterthought. (Paras 13-15)

(C) Tender process - Bid security - When bids are re-invited, the bid security originally deposited is to be taken into consideration - As long as the bid security remains valid and holds the necessary lien in favour of the employer, the purpose of the security is served, and minor deviations in documentation/format may be waived if they do not materially affect performance capability. (Paras 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its bid for a government contract, alleging arbitrary rejection and favouritism towards another bidder. The authority had rejected the petitioner's bid due to its failure to demonstrate the required annual financial turnover and for submitting an incomplete joint venture agreement lacking essential signatures. The petitioner also sought a criminal inquiry into the alleged use of forged documents by the successful bidder.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner's bid was non-responsive due to the absence of required signatures in the joint venture agreement and a failure to meet the mandatory financial turnover criteria. It held that the tender authority acted within its discretion, and the court could not interfere in commercial decisions absent evidence of an arbitrary or mala-fide process.

Issues: Whether the rejection of a bid for missing documentation and failure to meet financial benchmarks is arbitrary, and whether the court should order a formal inquiry into the validity of tender documents submitted by a counter-party?

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review in tender matters is restricted to examining the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. Since the petitioner failed to meet mandatory eligibility criteria at the time of submission and failed to upload a complete agreement, the rejection of the bid was legally valid. Consequently, no basis existed to order an inquiry into the actions of the employer.

Result: Writ petition and interlocutory application dismissed.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

This order will dispose of both the writ petition as well as the interlocutory application filed by the writ petitioner.

Heard Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant. Also heard Mr. Biswajit Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram, assisted by Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the selection of the respondent No. 4 for the contract work by the official respondents after acceptance of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of the respondent No. 4, which according to the petitioner was not valid. The petitioner is further aggrieved with the rejection of its Joint Venture without notice or opportunity for clarification for the works under the name and style “Strengthening of Transmission & Transformation system for Sustainable Power Supply in Mizoram under NESIDS (OTRI)”, which was floated under NIT/RFB No. P-37117/1/25-E-in-C(PM)/13 dated 06.11.2025.

Be it stated herein that, earlier the State respondents had floated an NIT for the same work vide No. P-13012/3/14-E-in-C(PM)/52 dated 19.09.2025. Thereafter a corrigendum was issued on 09.10.2025, by which the last date of tender submission was corrected as 25.10.2025 10:00AM, the presentation for technical bid as 25.10.2025 11:00AM and the technical bid opening as 25.10.2025 02:00PM. Insofar as the Standard Biding Document was concerned, the EMD/bid security amount earlier shown as Rs.67,87,000.00/- was now to be read as Rs.57,87,000.00/- and further, the annual turnover for the last five (5) consecutive financial years should be more than Rs.14.36 crores of the estimated cost put to tender instead of last three (3) consecutive financial years turnover. Lastly, the experience in eligible similar nature of work during the last seven (7) years that was prescribed earlier, now did not stipulate any number of years now.

Facts not disputed is that against the NIT that was issued there was only a sole tenderer, i.e. the respondent No. 4 and as the tender submitted was not found to be responsive, the respondent authorities decided to go for re-tender. Accordingly, the work was re-tendered vide NIT dated 06.11.2025 by which interested firms were required to submit their bids not later than 16:00 hours on 11.11.2025. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 submitted their respective bids and following the evaluation of the tender documents on the stipulated dates, respondent No. 4 was selected for the work while the petitioner’s bid was rejected on account of the Joint Venture agreement and Power of Attorney having being signed only by Zoram Venture. As a result, the annual turnover of the two (2) partner firms were not taken into account and the sole annual turnover of the petitioner firm, was found to be below the required margin at Rs.5.80 crores. A communication to this effect was made to the petitioner by the Engineer-in-Chief (P&E) through his letter dated 17.11.2025 and in response, the petitioner submitted his representation and objection before the respondent authority concerned. However, the objections raised by the petitioner and the contentions made, were found to be invalid and the technical evaluation, made earlier was reiterated. Accordingly, the partner firm of the petitioner i.e. M/S Zoram Venture, was communicated about the decision made on their representation and objection, by the Engineer-in-Chief (P&E) vide his letter dated 20.11.2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner firm is before this Court.

Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel, submits that the rejection of the bid of the petitioner on account of the absence of signatory in the joint venture agreement without seeking clarification is most arbitrary particularly when there is no specific stipulation that the joint venture agreement should be submitted al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16630

GAUHATI HIGH COURTFs And T Electricals – AppellantVersusState Of Mizoram – RespondentWP(C)/158/2025

Cases Referred (12)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Fs And T Electricals – Appellant
Versus
State Of Mizoram – Respondent
WP(C)/158/2025