Judicial Review in Tenders Is Limited to Arbitrariness: Allahabad HC

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, in the case of M/s A.S. Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine All 7194), dated November 4, 2025, reaffirmed that judicial review in tender matters is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and cannot be invoked to reopen commercial decisions absent arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, or procedural illegality.

The petitioner, M/s A.S. Traders, a road-construction contractor, participated in an electronic tender issued on February 6, 2025, by the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Pratapgarh. Technical bids were opened on March 12, 2025, from which point all bidders were permitted to file objections within a seventy-two-hour window. The petitioner later filed a complaint on May 2, 2025, alleging that respondent No. 7, M/s Arunima Constructions, ought to have been declared non-responsive under Clause 4.7 of the addendum/amendment to the Instructions to Bidders. This objection was filed well beyond the prescribed seventy-two-hour period. By that time, the Tender Evaluation Committee had already considered timely objections, declared the petitioner and four other bidders non-responsive, opened the financial bids on May 3, 2025, and identified respondent No. 7 as the lowest bidder, who was thereafter issued the Letter of Acceptance on May 5, 2025.

The petitioner challenged both its disqualification and the award to respondent No. 7, but an inquiry revealed that it had concealed two ongoing contracts under “Existing Commitment and Ongoing Works,” a material omission rendering its bid non-responsive. The Court held that this lack of disclosure, coupled with the petitioner’s failure to object to respondent No. 7 within the mandatory seventy-two-hour period under the Government Order dated August 25, 2020, barred any belated challenge, as objections cannot be revived once the statutory window has closed.

The Court emphasised that tender evaluation is a commercial exercise entrusted to administrative and technical experts and is not subject to a reviewing court’s substitution of judgment. Judicial intervention is warranted only where the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, perversity, patent unreasonableness, or discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court further relied on N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, [(2022) 6 SCC 127], dated August 21, 2024, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India underscored that ongoing infrastructure projects must not be halted on mere technicalities, particularly when public money, timelines, and essential public works are at stake.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the allegations of mala fides were vague and unsubstantiated. It found no irregularity in the acceptance of timely objections, the petitioner’s disqualification for concealment, or the continuation of a project that was already nearly ninety percent complete. The petitioner’s attempt to revive objections after expiry of the statutory window was viewed as an impermissible attempt to convert a commercial grievance into a constitutional challenge, and the Court held that interference at such an advanced stage would unjustifiably disrupt public infrastructure work and burden the State.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed that courts will not interfere with tender awards in the absence of proven arbitrariness or mala fides and will not permit unsuccessful bidders to derail public projects through belated or speculative challenges.