Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, in a judgment delivered on August 4, 2025, dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of multiple short-term tenders (NITs) issued by the District Election Officer, Sitamarhi, for electoral roll-related works. The Court held that no arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality was found in the tendering process to warrant judicial interference. Emphasising the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters, the Court observed:
“Model Tender Invitation merely provides the guidelines for issuance of tender notice. It is for the concerned authority to prescribe the conditions of tender.”
Facts
The petitioner, a contractor, approached the Court seeking quashing of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 02.07.2025 issued for work relating to the preparation, revision, and publication of the electoral roll for eight Legislative Assembly constituencies in Sitamarhi District. Subsequently, two more NITs dated 18.07.2025 and 19.07.2025 were also challenged by way of interlocutory applications.
The petitioner alleged procedural irregularities, including non-adherence to the Model Tender Invitation (MTI) prescribed by the Election Department, Bihar. Specifically, the NIT failed to mention estimated contract value, arbitrarily fixed the security deposit, omitted mandatory pre-bid meetings, and doubled the turnover requirement compared to the model tender.
Issues
- Whether the impugned NITs violated the Model Tender Invitation issued by the Election Department?
- Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the NITs?
- Whether judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted in the present case?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the NIT dated 02.07.2025, and subsequent NITs issued on 18.07.2025 and 19.07.2025, were violative of the Model Tender Invitation. Key points included:
- The earlier NIT (dated 19.06.2025) was not properly advertised on official portals, denying wide participation.
- The impugned NIT failed to disclose estimated tender value.
- The bid security was arbitrarily fixed at ₹1,00,000, instead of being pegged at 2% of estimated cost as per Bihar Finance Rules.
- The turnover threshold was increased to ₹80 lakhs from ₹40 lakhs without justification.
- Pre-bid meeting, a mandatory requirement under the model tender, was not conducted.
- Despite representations, no corrective action was taken.
The petitioner asserted that the deviations rendered the process arbitrary and exclusionary.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Advocate General opposed the petition on multiple grounds:
- The petitioner failed to demonstrate how he was personally aggrieved, suggesting the challenge was filed to champion the cause of others.
- The Model Tender Invitation is not binding but advisory in nature.
- It is within the discretion of the tendering authority to prescribe suitable conditions based on the urgency and nature of the work.
- Judicial review in tender matters is limited and courts should not interfere unless mala fides or arbitrariness is clearly established.
Analysis of the Law
The Court relied on settled principles governing judicial review in tender matters. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha and Tata Motors Ltd. v. BEST Undertaking, the Court reiterated that:
- Courts should refrain from micromanaging tender conditions or substituting their views over those of expert administrative bodies.
- Interference is justified only when actions are arbitrary, biased, irrational, or vitiated by mala fides.
- Model guidelines cannot override the discretion of the authority, especially in urgent, time-sensitive matters like electoral preparations.
Precedent Analysis
- Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759
The Court observed that frivolous litigation aimed at arm-twisting public authorities under the guise of public interest must be discouraged. It cautioned against changing positions and procedural technicalities being exploited to derail public tenders. - Tata Motors Ltd. v. BEST Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1
Emphasised the principle of judicial restraint in contractual matters. Courts must allow “fair play in the joints” and avoid undue interference unless a glaring illegality is evident.
Both precedents reinforced the Court’s view that deviations from model tender conditions, without arbitrariness or bias, do not merit judicial intervention.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that although the petitioner highlighted several deviations from the model tender format, no mala fides or irrationality was established. The petition was seen more as a strategic challenge rather than a bona fide public interest claim. Key observations included:
- The Model Tender Invitation is a guiding document, not a binding rule.
- The tendering authority has the discretion to modify or waive certain conditions based on practical exigencies.
- The petitioner’s failure to demonstrate specific prejudice or unfair exclusion undermines the maintainability of the petition.
- Judicial review is not appellate in nature; the Court should not second-guess administrative discretion unless it is shown to be perverse.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:
“It is for the employer/authority to prescribe the conditions of the tender… This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the respondent-authority.”
Accordingly, no relief was granted to the petitioner, and all interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Implications
This ruling reinforces judicial restraint in public procurement matters and clarifies that deviations from model tender formats alone do not render the process illegal. The judgment offers critical guidance for future tender litigations, underscoring that:
- Model guidelines do not override administrative discretion.
- Petitioners must demonstrate personal prejudice or arbitrary exclusion.
- Courts will not entertain speculative or tactical tender challenges.
Referred Cases and Their Relevance
- Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha (2020) 16 SCC 759
Cited to highlight that courts must guard against commercial litigants abusing public interest for personal gain. - Tata Motors Ltd. v. BEST Undertaking (2023) 19 SCC 1
Quoted to underscore that judicial interference in contractual matters must be cautious and only where necessary to prevent manifest injustice.
FAQs
Q1. Can model tender conditions be enforced through a writ petition?
No, model tender conditions are only guidelines and not legally binding. Courts generally defer to the authority’s discretion unless arbitrariness or mala fides is evident.
Q2. When can courts interfere in public tender processes?
Courts may intervene if the process is found to be arbitrary, biased, irrational, or vitiated by mala fides. Mere procedural deviations do not invite judicial review.
Q3. What is the significance of this judgment for future tender litigants?
It clarifies that to sustain a challenge, petitioners must prove they are aggrieved and that the tender conditions are manifestly unfair, not just inconsistent with advisory templates.
