Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. K. Dholakia, Manoj Kumar Das and Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs.
For the Respondent: R. Venkataramani Ashok Panigrahi, Satya Mitra Garg and Sibo Sankar Mishra, Advs.

What is the scope of judicial review in tender processes and award of contracts? What are the valid grounds for rejecting tenders? What is the role of the court when a tenderer alleges bias or favoritism in the tender process?

Key Points: - The court's decision emphasized the importance of valid and reasonable grounds for rejecting tenders and highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in matters related to tender processes and award of contracts [judgement_subject]. - The case involved the rejection of the lowest tenders of the fifth respondent in two cases related to construction contracts [Fact of the Case]. - The court found that the Committee had good and adequate reasons for rejecting the lowest tenders of the fifth respondent in both cases [Finding of the Court]. - The High Court's interference with the contracts awarded to the respective appellants was unjustified [Finding of the Court]. - The court held that the rejection of the lowest tenders of the fifth respondent was based on good and adequate reasons, and the High Court's interference was unjustified [Ratio Decidendi]. - Both appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court in the two writ petitions was set aside [Final Decision]. - The court examined the rejection of the lowest tenders of the fifth respondent in two cases and found that the Committee had good and adequate reasons for the rejection [judgement_subject]. - The court noted that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides, and not to check whether a decision is sound [1000626000018]. - The court stated that if the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment is made out [1000626000018]. - In the first case, the rejection of the tender was based on the communication from postal authorities stating that the TD passbook should not be acted upon, which was a valid ground for treating the EMD as defective [1000626000020][1000626000022]. - In the second case, the rejection of the tender was based on the unduly low and unworkable rate quoted for a significant item of work, which is a valid ground for rejection according to the Orissa Public Works Department Code [1000626000027]. - The court found that the High Court exceeded its power of judicial review by interfering with the contracts awarded to the appellants (!) .

What is the scope of judicial review in tender processes and award of contracts?

What are the valid grounds for rejecting tenders?

What is the role of the court when a tenderer alleges bias or favoritism in the tender process?