The validity of an administrative action is determined by the facts and materials available at the time it was taken; subsequent developments cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate an otherwise lawful decision, especially in tender matters where the scope of judicial review is limited.

3 21-04-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner, in the present writ application, has sought the following reliefs:

“1 (I) Quashing of the ex-parte decision of the Departmental Tender Committee dated 05.05.2025 contained in Letter No. 448 corresponding to the Notice Inviting Tender No. 07/2024-25 (Group No. 16) (Annexure P/4) by which, after declaring the technical bid of the petitioner responsive, after opening of the financial bid and declaring the petitioner as Lowest Bidder, the technical bid has again been re-evaluated at the instance of third party to the bidding process and the technical bid and financial bid of the petitioner has been declared non-responsive with a further direction to award the work to M/s. Maa Laxmi Construction at a price of 17.5% below the schedule of rate;

(ii) Restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/4) the pendency of the present writ application and/or the without the leave of this Hon’ble Court.”

3. Upon perusal of Memo No. 448 (Mo) dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ application), it appears that the petitioner was disqualified from the tender process for the following reasons:-

“4- foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr dk fu.kZ;&

lfefr ds le{k miLFkkfir lays[k ij fopkjksijkUr foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr] eq[; vfHk; ark] y?kq ty lalk/ku foHkkx] Hkkxyiqj ds i=kad&787 fnukad 04-03-2025 }kjk vuq”kalk fd;k x;k gSA

mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr fufonk dk rduhdh chM dk ewY;kad.k dh dkjZokbZ fnukad 19-02-2025 dks fuxZr dh xbZ gSA Jh jes”k izlkn xqIrk dks y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] jksgrkl vUrxZr foRrh; o’kZ 2023&24 esa 10 ¼nl½ vnn vkoafVr dk;ksZ a esa ls 08 ¼vkB½ vnn ;kstukvksa dk th.kksZ}kj dk;Z iwjk ugha fd; s tkus ds dkj.k dk;Zikyd vfHk; ark] y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] jksgrkl ds i=kad 643 fnukad 12-04-2025 ds }kjk fMckj fd;k x;k gSA

Li’V gS fd Jh xqIrk ds }kjk rF;ksa dks Nqikdj xyr “kiFk i= ds vk/kkj ij fufonk izkIr fd; s tkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA ftlls SBD dh IFB dafMdk 4-8 dk mYya?ku gqvk gSA vr,o budh foRrh; fufonk dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA”

4. The record further reveals that the aforesaid decision was based upon Letter No. 643 dated 12.04.2025 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ application), whereby the respondent authorities had indicated that out of 10 ongoing projects, 08 projects attributed to the petitioner had not been completed.

5. The said communication dated 12.04.2025 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ application) was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8572 of 2025, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.09.2025, was pleased to pass the following order:

“3. Accordingly, impugned action dated 12.04.2025 stands set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to proceed to pass a fresh order after due consideration of the notice dated 24.09.2024 read with the petitioner’s reply dated 22.04.2025 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any stand disposed of.”

6. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities passed a fresh order vide Letter No. 69 dated 11.12.2025, which reads as follows:

“ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ikfjr mDr U;k;kns”k ds vkyksd esa dk;Zikyd vfHk; ark] y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] jksgrkl] lklkjke ds i=kad&1912 fnukad& 20-09-2025 }kjk laosnd dks fMckj djus laca/kh vkns”k i=kad&643 fnukad&12-04-2025 dks fujLr dj fn;k x;k] ,oa dk;Zikyd vfHk; ark] y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] jksgrkl] lklkjke ds 2113 fnukad&22-10-2025 ,oa v/kh{k.k vfHk; ark] y?kq flapkbZ v apy] iVuk ds i=kad&2759 fnukad&29-10-2025 }kjk