Judicial review in tender matters is narrowly circumscribed. A court should only interfere if the procuring authority's action is arbitrary, irrational, or malafide. Mandatory tender conditions must be strictly followed, and a decision to re-tender is valid if applied uniformly to all non-compliant bidders.

O R D E R:

Heard Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel for Petitioner, Sri B. Narsimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Sri Pramod Singh, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. Petitioner, has originally prayed for the following relief:

" to issue a writ, direction or order especially in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring that the action of Respondents No. 2 and 3 in rejecting the Petitioner's bid for the Tender for Procurement of Suspension System for FICV (Tr.) as per specification no: 98002/OFMK/R&D/FICV/SS/2024-25 dated 2-5-2024 by letter dated 14-8-2025 as being arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and, consequently, set aside the rejection of the Petitioner's bid and the letter dated 14-8-2025 issued to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3 and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. By order dated 21-11-2025 in I.A. No. 2 of 2025, the prayer in the writ petition stands amended. The amended prayer reads thus:

" to issue a writ, direction or order especially in the nature of a writ of mandamus

(a) declaring that the action of Respondents No. 2 and 3 in rejecting the Petitioners bid for the Tender for Procurement of Suspension System for FICV (Tr.) as per specification 98002/OFMK/R&D/FICV/SS/2024-25 dated 2-5-2024 by letter dated 14-8-2025 as being arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and, consequently, set aside the rejection of the Petitioner's bid and the letter dated 14-8-2025 issued to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3;

(b) declaring the communication dated 22-9-2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3 as being arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and, consequently, set aside the communication dated 22-9-2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3 and; consequently,

(c) directing the Respondents to declare the Petitioner as the successful bidder for the Tender for Procurement of Suspension System for FICV (Tr.) as per specification no. 98002/OFMK/R&D/FICV/SS/2024-25, dated 02-05-2024 and to issue supply orders under the said tender to the Petitioner;

(d) and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. Petitioner is a company engaged in design, manufacture and development of special purpose machines, engine assembly lines, test rigs, pressing machines and industrial washing machines, and has, on its own showing, been catering to the defence, automobile, aerospace and railway sectors for over thirty years. It is registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

4.1. It is the case of petitioner that Respondents 2 and 3 floated a tender dated 02-05-2024 for procurement of Suspension System for the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (Tracked), and tender was hosted on Government e-Marketplace portal under tender ID 5908019. According to Petitioner, the bid document on GeM portal showed the quantity for which tender was floated as two i.e., in terms of Clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the General Terms and Conditions appearing at Clause K of the Request for Proposal, the supply order was to be released in two phases, namely, Phase I for the development of the prototype (two sets of suspension systems) and Phase II for series production (four hundred and eighty