Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 13881
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Trijal Construction Pvt. Ltd. Union of India through its Secretary
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12740 of 2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Madhav Raj, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.2&3:Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Additional Solicitor General
Judicial review of tender disqualification is not warranted when the bid validity period has expired, making any relief academic, and where disqualification is based on non-compliance with mandatory tender conditions.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Tender Matters - Judicial Review - Principles of deference to tender issuer's interpretation of its own conditions - Expiry of bid validity period renders relief academic - Non-compliance with mandatory tender conditions justifies disqualification - Reliance on Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818 (paras 13-14) and Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. (2016) 15 SCC 272 (paras 14, 26) - No interference unless process is arbitrary, mala fide or perverse - Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216 (para 24) - Writ petition dismissed as no effective relief could be granted after bid validity lapsed (paras 11, 17).
(B) Interpretation of tender documents - The owner/employer is the best judge of its requirements; constitutional courts must defer to that understanding absent mala fides or perversity (paras 13-14).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner participated in a tender for Optical Fibre Cable laying works. It was disqualified from the technical bid on the ground that copies of relevant contracts/work orders for each financial year were not submitted. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification. The bid validity period was 150 days from 21.02.2025 and expired in July 2025. The respondents contended the petition had become infructuous.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to upload the requisite work orders, a mandatory condition of the NIT. The disqualification was after due consideration of representations. Moreover, the bid validity period had expired, making any relief academic. The court applied the principle that the tender issuer's interpretation of its conditions should be given deference. The petition was dismissed.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned disqualification order warranted interference under writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether any relief could be granted after expiry of the bid validity period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the bid validity period has expired, the writ petition becomes infructuous as no effective or enforceable relief can be granted. Even if the disqualification was arguably erroneous, any adjudication would be purely academic. The court also reiterated that the author of the tender is best placed to interpret its terms, and judicial interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity.
Result: Writ application dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
“A. A writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ order/s direction/s quashing the following:
i. The order/decision dated 23.05.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 whereby the Petitioner was disqualified from the technical bid of Notice Inviting Tender (for short "N.I.T.") No. CNTxE/MMC/NIT/OFC Patchwork/Patna/2024-25/7, Bid No. GEM/2025/B/5878504 dated 31.01.2025 citing the reason that "Copies of relevant contracts/orders along with bid in support of having provided services during each of the financial year not submitted.
B. A writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, commanding the Respondents for the following:
i. To hold the order contained in Annexure-P/3 to be non-est and nullity in the eye of law.
ii. To treat the Petitioner to be technically eligible as per the terms of the N.I.T and is fit to be considered for financial bid.
iii. To hold an independent and impartial inquiry into the fairness and transparency of the tender process to ensure principle of competitiveness and the same is to be without arbitrariness and favouritism at all.
iv. To restrain the respondent authorities from proceeding with the tender process i.e. from opening the financial bid, from allotting the work order etc. till disposal of the present writ application.
C. To any other relief/s to which the Petitioner is found entitled to.”
3. The present case arises out of a tender process initiated by the respondents through the Government e- Marketplace portal vide Bid No. GEM/2025/B/5878504 dated 31.01.2025 for execution of Optical Fibre Cable (OFC) laying and associated works for Patna Division. The petitioner, a registered company engaged in works contract, participated in the bidding process by submitting its bid along with requisite documents, including experience certificates and copies of relevant contracts/orders. Upon evaluation of the technical bids, the petitioner was declared disqualified on the ground that copies of relevant contracts/orders in support of services rendered during each financial year were not submitted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disqualification is arbitrary and unsustainable, as all requisite documents, including relevant contracts/orders, were duly furnished. It is further submitted that despite representations, no reconsideration was made, reflecting non-application of mind and violation of principles of fairness. Reliance is placed on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works to contend that arbitrary and hyper-technical rejection in tender matters is liable to be interfered with in judicial review.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of uploading supporting work orders alongwith experience certificates. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner were duly considered, and upon verification, it was found that the requisite work orders had not been uploaded within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that present writ petition has become infructuous as the bid validity period of 150 days from 21.02.2025 has already expired in July 2025, and no relief can now be granted in respect of the concluded tender process.
6. The limited issue which arises for consideration is whether any interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with the impugned order of disqualification passed by the respondent authority.
7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and materials available on record, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 has been passed on account of non- compliance with the mandatory conditions stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender bearing Bid No. GEM/2025/B/5878504 dated
