Back
's Tender Challenge Dismissed by for Suppression
The has dismissed a writ appeal filed by challenging the award of a diet supply contract at , holding that the association suppressed the filing of an earlier writ petition — a material fact that warranted dismissal. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya upheld the Single Judge's order, emphasizing that courts must exercise in tender matters.
Background: A Tale of Two Petitions
The appellant had been supplying diet to inpatients and duty doctors at the hospital since . In , a fresh tender was floated. The appellant participated alongside five other bidders, and technical and financial bids were opened on in the presence of all bidders. Shortly after the fresh tender was issued, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 27573 of 2025 seeking extension of its existing contract, which was dismissed on .
Thereafter, the decided on to adopt a to select successful bidders, split the tender, and curtail the contract period. All five qualified bidders, including the appellant, consented to this process. When the contract was awarded to respondents 6–8, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 35483 of 2025 , challenging the selection and alleging procedural irregularities. Critically, the appellant did not disclose the filing and dismissal of the earlier writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments: Suppression or Separate ?
Senior counsel for the appellant, , argued that the earlier writ petition concerned a different — extension of the existing contract — and its non-disclosure was accidental and not fatal. He contended that the authorities could not resort to a without prescribed criteria and that the Single Judge should have adjudicated on the legality of the procedure rather than dismissing the petition on suppression grounds.
Respondents, represented by Senior Counsel , countered that the appellant had participated in every stage of the tender process without objection, had itself benefited from a similar lottery in the past, and deliberately concealed the earlier litigation. They argued that the Single Judge correctly held the suppression to be material and that no interference was warranted.
Legal Analysis: Suppression and the Scope of
The High Court closely examined the record and found that the appellant had indeed suppressed the filing of W.P. No. 27573 of 2025 , which was actuated by the same tender notification and sought to block the fresh process. The Bench observed:
“In the given factual matrix, learned Single Bench correctly held that there is by writ petitioner. We do not find any merit in the plea raised by learned counsel for appellant/writ petitioner that non-disclosure of Writ Petition No.27573 of 2025 is not material and pertains to a separate . … It is indeed a material fact, which should have been mentioned in the present proceedings.”
The Court further noted that even if the petition could have been dismissed solely on suppression, the Single Judge had also examined the merits and found the procedure not illegal or arbitrary, especially since the majority of qualified bidders consented to the . The Division Bench endorsed this view.
Relying on the 's decision in , the High Court reiterated that of tender matters is limited to checking arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, or . The Court quoted:
“ of administrative action is intended to prevent . Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check whether choice or decision is 'sound'. … Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation … should be resisted.”
The Court also cited for the principle that greater latitude must be given to the State in formulating tender conditions and awarding contracts unless malice or misuse of power is shown.
Key Observations
The Bench made several pointed observations:
- The appellant had previously been awarded the same work through drawal of lots and had never objected to that method.
- All qualified bidders were present at the meeting where the lottery decision was taken, and the appellant did not raise any objection.
- The earlier writ petition, though seeking extension, was directly connected to the fresh tender and ought to have been disclosed.
- Even without suppression, the procedure adopted by the authorities was not illegal or arbitrary, and the Single Judge correctly refrained from interfering.
Court's Decision
Finding no illegality, infirmity, or irregularity in the impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal as devoid of merit. The Court concluded:
“We do not find any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. The same is accordingly upheld. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.”
The judgment reinforces the principle that parties approaching constitutional courts must come with and disclose all material facts. It also reaffirms that courts will not lightly interfere in commercial tender decisions taken in a fair and transparent manner, especially when the aggrieved party has participated in the process and consented to the procedure adopted.
