Gujarat High Court
Kishorebhai Pranlal Bhut vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 623 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KISHOREBHAI PRANLAL BHUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MITRAJEET SHUKLA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhairyawan D. Bhatt for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitrajeet Shukla for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Page 1 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed on 11.01.2025, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A)The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of certiorari and/or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the that Clause No. 11, sub-clause No. 4 prescribing Financial Status in Request for Proposal for procurement of Medals Additional Terms & Condition and Specifications published by Sports Authority of Gujarat is irrational, arbitrary and is therefore bad in law.
(B)The Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare Clause No. 7.2 Exemption, sub-clause-II is unjust, arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory and violative Article 14, 19. 21 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the bid of petitioner, in accordance with law.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct respondents to consider the bid placed by petitioner and further direct respondents from awarding any tender."
3. Brief facts of the petition are as follows: Page 2 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 3.1 The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of Mementos, Presentation Articles, Gift Articles in Silver and Gold and its supply. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 published a tender notice with a Request for Proposal for Procurement of Medals for the Khel Maha Kumbh to be held in March 2025. The tender for purchase of medals and trophies was issued on 31.12.2024 and the last date for submission of bids was 15.01.2025. The petitioner, in response to the tender notice, submitted its financial bid/quotation on 13.01.2025. However, after affirming this petition on 11.01.2025, the petitioner inserted the date '13.01.2025' in a blank space kept in paragraph 4.3 of the affirmed petition. When a query was put to the learned advocate for the petitioner, it was pointed out that the petition was presented before the Registry on 13.01.2025, and at that point of time the date was inserted in the blank space in paragraph 4.3 of the memo of the petition.
4. We are of the opinion that once the memo of the Page 3 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined petition was affirmed on 11.01.2025, and without there being any order passed by the Court permitting amendment, no amendment could have been made in the affirmed copy of the petition. Therefore, the date inserted in paragraph 4.3 is nothing but tampering with the affirmed copy of the petition presented before the Registry on 13.01.2025.
5. The petitioner during filing of the petition had initially challenged Clause No. 11, Sub-clause No. 4 of the tender conditions, which prescribes the financial status in the Request for Proposal for Procurement of Medals. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the 'Make in India' initiative by Government of India, Government of Gujarat has framed a Procurement Policy whereby local manufacturers like the petitioner would be given priority in awarding tenders. As per the Procurement Policy of Government of Gujarat, 2024, impetus is given to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Women and Startups of the State so as to enable them to participate in Page 4 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Government purchases for providing goods and services to various Government Organisations. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 - Sports Authority of Gujarat - issued the 'Request for Proposal for Procurement of Medals' along with Additional Terms and Conditions and Specifications. The tender for purchase of medals and trophies stipulates Clause No.11 prescribing the financial status for eligibility criteria for bidders, including Sub- clauses (4) and (6) relating to experience. It is the case of the petitioner that the requirement of financial status and experience eligibility criteria is contrary to the Startup India Programme. The petitioner, therefore, raised objections in the pre-bid meeting held on 03.01.2025 and thereafter made a written representation on 10.01.2025 before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat and the Hon'ble Minister of State (Sports and Youth Service and Coordination of Voluntary Organisation, Government of Gujarat), stating that prescribing minimum annual turnover only for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises is arbitrary, irrational and illegal. Page 5 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
6. According to the petitioner, the eligibility criteria in similar tender for the financial year 2023-24 required was 50% of the amount of the contract as turnover, whereas Clause No.11 of the tender conditions prescribes the minimum average annual turnover equal to twice the estimated cost of the tender for the previous three financial years, certified by a Chartered Accountant. It also provides for completion of similar services over the last three years, i.e. the current financial year and the last three financial years (ending month of March prior to the bid opening) as following: (i) Three similar completed services equal to 40% of the estimated cost; (ii) two similar completed services costing not less than the amount equal to 50% of the estimated cost; or (iii) one similar completed service costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost. It was submitted that the petitioner, therefore, challenged these conditions when the petition was filed. Page 6 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
7. It appears that the petitioner was not heard for one reason or another till 22.04.2025, and thereafter, during the course of hearing in the month of April, it appears that a statement was made on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that the tender had been awarded to the newly joined respondent No. 5 - Gujarat State Handloom and Handicraft Development Corporation - during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner, therefore, filed Civil Application (For Amendment) No. 1 of 2025, seeking substitution of the prayers in the petition, which was allowed by order dated 05.05.2025 passed by this Court. Respondent No. 5 was also joined as a party in terms of the prayer made in Civil Application (for joining of party) No. 2 of 2025. Accordingly, paragraph 7 containing the prayers was substituted as under:
"A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of certiorari and/or other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring the that action of Respondents in issuing worder in favor Gujarat State Handloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd is irrational, arbitrary and is therefore bad in law.Page 7 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined (B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare action of Respondents in issuing Work Order in favor of Gujarat State Handloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd is unjust. arbitrary. irrational, discriminatory and violative Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of india and be pleased to quash and also set aside the same and be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the bid of petitioner, in accordance with law. (C) Without prejudice to relief as prayed hereinabove and in alternative. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to award compensation at 20% of the tender value or at any other rate as it may deem appropriate in facts of the case at running interest of 9% p.a. from date of Work Order till realization, towards loss suffered by present petitioner for the aforesaid arbitrary. irrational and unreasonable action on part of Respondents and further direct Respondents jointly or severally to deposit the same.
(D) Any other and further relief this Honorable Court deem fit and proper, in interest of justice."
8. The main reason for amending the petition was that respondent No. 5 was awarded the contract and issued the Work Order during the pendency of the petition without inviting any tenders, which was contrary to the Page 8 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Policy of respondent No. 4. It was submitted that as per the Gujarat State Procurement Policy, 2024 (for short 'the Policy') dated 14.03.2024, purchases without tender can be made from respondent No. 5 only up to Rs.15 lakhs, whereas respondent No. 4 has awarded a Work Order of more than Rs.45 lakhs, which is in breach of Clause 8 of the Policy. Therefore, it was prayed by the petitioner that the action of the respondents in issuing the Work Order in favour of respondent No.5 be declared irrational, arbitrary and bad in law. The petitioner also prayed to set aside the said Work Order and to direct the respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner in accordance with law, or in alternative, to award compensation at the rate of 20% of the tender value or at such other rate as may be considered appropriate, with running interest at 9% per annum from the date of the Work Order till realisation.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Dhairyawan D. Bhatt appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Page 9 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined was initially aggrieved by Clause No. 11, Sub-clause (4) of the tender conditions, which stipulated the financial status for the bidders, and that the petitioner ought to have been given the same exemption as provided under Condition No. 7.2 of the tender conditions applicable to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. It was submitted that during the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 4, contrary to the Policy, issued the Work Order to respondent No. 5. As per Clause 8(B) of the Policy, purchases without tender can be made only up to Rs.15 lakhs, whereas the Work Order in question is for more than Rs.45 lakhs. It was therefore submitted that the respondent authorities have violated the Policy, and hence the Work Order issued by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 is required to be quashed and set aside.
10. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a Micro and Small Scale Enterprise and therefore the exemption provided under Clause 7.2 of tender Page 10 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined conditions, granting exemption for Tender Fee and EMD, ought to have been extended to its financial status as well. However, during the pendency of the petition, the respondent, in order to frustrate the prayers made by the petitioner, has given a complete go-by to the Policy by purchasing the medals from respondent No. 5, even though the purchases exceed Rs.15 lakhs. It was therefore submitted that the purchases made by respondent No. 4 from respondent No. 5, a Governmental Organisation, are liable to be quashed and set aside, as the same were made without inviting any tender.
11. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 LawSuit (SC) 1141. It was submitted that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the issue of public auction vis-a-vis private negotiations, has held as under: Page 11 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined "[13] This Court time and again has emphasized the need to maintain transparency in grant of public contracts. Ordinarily, maintenance of transparency as also compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution would inter alia be ensured by holding public auction upon issuance of advertisement in the well known newspapers. That has not been done in this case. Although the Nagar Nigam had advertised the contract, the High Court has directed that it should be given for 10 years to a particular party (respondent No. 1). This was clearly illegal.
[14] It is well settled that ordinarily the State or its instrumentalities should not give contracts by private negotiation but by open public auction/tender after wide publicity. In this case the contract has not only been given by way of private negotiation, but the negotiation has been carried out by the High Court itself, which is impermissible.
[15] We have no doubt that in rare and exceptional cases, having regard to the nature of the trade or largesse or for some other good reason, a contract may have to be granted by private negotiation, but normally that should not be done as shakes the public confidence.
16] The law is well-settled that contracts by the State, its corporations instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through publi auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notificatiol of the public-auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well known dailies having wide circulation in the locality with all relevant details such Page 12 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined as date, time and place of auction, subject- matter of auction, technical specifications, estimated cost, earnest money Deposit, etc. The award of Government contracts through public-auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in the public procurement. to maximise economy and efficiency in Government procurement, to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. This is required by Article 14 of the Constitution. However, in rare and exceptional cases, for instance during natural calamities and emergencies declared by the Government:
where the procurement is possible from a single source only; where the supplier or contractor has exclusive rights in respect of the goods or services and no reasonable alternative or substitute exists: where the auction was held on several dates but there were no bidders or the bids offered were too low, etc., this normal rule may be departed from and such contracts may be awarded through 'private negotiations'. See Ram and Shyam Company V/s. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1147.
"[18] The law is, thus, clear that ordinarily all contracts by the Government or by an instrumentality of the State should be granted only by public auction or by inviting tenders, after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation, so that all eligible persons will have opportunity to bid in the bid, and there is total transparency. In our opinion this is an essential requirement in a democracy, where the people are supreme, and all official acts must be actuated by the Page 13 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined public interest, and should inspire public confidence."
12. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6, it was submitted that the process of inviting tenders can be given a go by, by the authority in exceptional cases, such as situations arising out of natural calamities. Reliance was placed on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, wherein it has been held as under:
"20 Inviting tenders and conducting public auctions are considered to be preferred methods of allocation for two reasons:
firstly procurement can be made at the best price; and secondly, allocation is through a transparent process. However, if the purpose of allocation by the State is not revenue maximization, the State could award contracts through other methods, provided it is non-arbitrary and meets the requirements of Article 14.
22. The following principles emerge from the discussion above:Page 14 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
(i) Government action must be just, fair and reasonable and in accordance with the principles of Article 14; and
(ii) While government can deviate from the route of tenders or public auctions for the grant of contracts, the deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The deviation from the tender route has to be justified and such a justification must comply with the requirements of Article
14."
13. In support of the submission that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subhash Projects and Marketing Limited Vs. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd., reported in 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1421. In the facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when different yardsticks were applied at different stages and the Ministry/State persisted in raising objections only until the appellant was found to be the lowest tenderer, such conduct appeared strange, and therefore no interference was called for. Consequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the award of compensation. Hon'ble Page 15 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Apex Court in the said judgment held as under:
"11. We were taken elaborately through a large number of documents including the Valuation process undertaken by the Evaluation committee and the opinions expressed by the other responsible bodies and a reappraisal of those materials, only supports the conclusion of the Division bench on the matters in controversy. It may be noticed that the learned single judge had also rejected the contentions of subhash Projects, and had held that it was difficult to understand as to how the Power corporation overlooked the original defect in the tender of Subhash Projects which included a price variation clause and not a firm price as stipulated and how it held negotiations only with it at the price bid stage when Subhash Projects admittedly lowered its bid so as to make its offer nearer to the offer of L and T. despite the restriction in that regard as contained in oecf letter dated 1.7.1996 made much of to support the contract given to it and how subhash Projects was permitted to enter into sub- contracts with other contractors, and that too, even prior to the entering into an agreement by Subhash Projects itself. The learned single Judge had also found that in any event, price variation became necessary in view of the alterations, amendments and clarifications to the tender schedule. The Division Bench had, by and large, agreed with that finding. These findings are seen to be justified on the materials available on record and there is no justification in this Court interfering with those findings in these appeals. Thus, it was a case where Page 16 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined different yardsticks were being used at different stages and the persistence of the Ministry of State for Power in raising objections until Subhash Projects was chosen as the lowest tenderer does look strange."
14. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Power Carriers (India) Private Limited v. Shri G.M. Lanong and Others, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Megh 314, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"36. Though the aforesaid decisions have no direct application to the facts of the present case but, in a summation of the principles therein, it is noticed that the method of open invitation to offer is generally accepted to be preferable method for award of the contract by the State and its agencies that ensures fairness and transperacy but, departure therefrom, by itself, is not of illegality, if the departure is based on some valid and rational principles and conforms to the requirements of fairness and reasonableness. However, a blithe deviation is considered intolerable by the Courts, the ultimate test being that of fairness of decision-making process and adequate compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
37. While keeping the principles aforesaid in view, it could now be examined if the impugned interrelated Page 17 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined actions of the appellant-Board i.e, of cancelling the process under the NIT dated 01.03.2006; and of departure from the normal rule of inviting tenders while awarding the contract to the appellant- Company stand the relevant tests of reasonableness, rationality, fairness and transparency.
40. In a desperate attempt to somehow justify this questionable abandonment, the appellants have attempted to suggest that there had been a so called change of Policy decision by the Board because of various technical and financial requirements that instead of going ahead with 220 KV towers, the construction shall be of 132 KV towers. Such a suggestion has its own shortcomings and pitfalls. In the first place, it is difficult to find from the material placed on record if such a Policy decision was indeed taken before issuance of the aforesaid letter dated 23.03.2007 conveying abandonment of the tender process due to 'unavoidable circumstances'. Secondly, it is noticed that after such abandonment, it was proposed on 20.04.2007 that the appellant-Company be awarded the work of 'Construction of 132 KV double circuit line from Myntdu Leshka HEP to the 132 KV Khliehriat S/S'. The same particulars were stated in the Work Order dated 16.05.2007. The specifications of towers were nowhere stated in those propositions. It appears from the material placed on record that only after such placing of the Work Order that the Member Technical of the Board prepared the Agenda Note dated 14.06.2007 (Annexure-5) suggesting as if construction KV Towers was not considered technically and financially Page 18 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined feasible. Only thereafter, Board purportedly ratified the award of the work 'for construction/erection of 132 KV line on 132 KV double circuit towers from MLHEP-I to the 132 KV Khliehriat Sub-Station' in its meeting dated 15.06.2007.
46. In an attempt to justify the award of work to the appellant-Company without invitation to offers, it has been strenuously argued that the project in question was that of public utility and was time bound; and that the same would have been jeopardized by invitation of such offers. This justification is also nothing but a hollow pretext. As noticed, for this work, an NIT was issued earlier in the month of March, 2006 but the process itself dragged on for an inordinate length of time and in fact, the respondent, who was one of the bidders and was sought to be disqualified, made his protest in the month of November, 2006 whereupon, he was requested to submit certain documents; and the respondent indeed submitted the documents in the month of December, 2006. Thereafter, the appellant-Board chose to sit over the matter for another three months and then, cancelled the tender process only in the month of March, 2007. As noticed, no plausible reason for scrapping of the said process has been brought on record. If at all it were a matter of urgency, it is left to everyone's guess as to why the earlier tender process was kept pending for more than one year and then, why the same was scrapped at all? In this regard, again, even if we assume that scrapping of earlier tender process was not an oblique decision, it is difficult to find any Page 19 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined rationale or any justification that after scrapping, the appellant-Board suddenly found it to be a matter of urgency and then, chose to offer the work to the appellant-Company without adopting any such method which would have ensured competitive biddings.
51. In the ordinary course, the consequence of the findings against the validity of the process in question would have been of setting it aside but then, it cannot be said that as a further consequence thereof, the work would have been awarded to the respondent alone. Then, the fact of the matter had been that even when the writ petition was filed, a substantial part of the work in question had already been executed and by the time the writ petition was decided, the execution was complete. In the given set of facts and circumstances, though the respondent could be considered as one of the potential bidders who had indeed offered the bid earlier and who might have been interested in offering the bid if tenders were floated afresh but then, it is difficult to say that the respondent alone would have the only person entitled to be awarded the contract in question. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the view that only a reasonable amount of compensation could have been considered available for the respondent (writ petitioner) and not beyond."
15. It was, therefore, submitted that in view of the above settled legal position, the award of the Work Order in Page 20 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined favour of respondent No. 4 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Further, as the tender process has already concluded and the Work Order has also been fully complied with, as stated on oath by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to be granted adequate compensation, in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
16. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw, appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, submitted that it is not in contest that the Work Order was issued to respondent No. 5 without inviting tenders, the concerned entity being a Government organization. However, he heavily relied upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, which depicts the circumstances under which the Work Order was given after obtaining permission from the State Government for deviation from the Policy in the facts of the case. Page 21 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
17. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 in April 2025, wherein the following averments are made:
"1. The respnt. No.4 most respectfully submits that the petitioner herein has preferred present Special Civil Application with a prayer to declare that the Clause-11, Sub-Clause No.4 prescribing Financial Status in Request For Proposal for Procurement of Medals, Additional Terms and Conditions and Specifications published by Sports Authority of Gujarat as irrational, arbitrary and bad in law. The petitioner has further prayed that the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to declare Clause 7.2, Exemption, Sub-Clause-2 as unjust, arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory and therefore the same be quashed and set aside and therefore the petitioner is required to be considered eligible in accordance with law. The respnt. no.4 has filed a detailed Affidavit in Reply and contended that the petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief in view of the facts and material on record.
2. The respnt. no.4 submits that pending the present Speudi Civil Application, it has been decided to purchase Medals and Trophies from Gujarat State Handicraft and Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., a Govt. of Gujarat Enterprise and even a Work Order is also issued on 7.2.25 and a copy thereof is Page 22 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined annexed as ANNEXURE-A. In other words present Special Civil Application has become infructuous as purchases is to be made from Govt.Corporation in stead of private supplier and therefore Hon'ble Court is most respectfully prayed not to grant any interim relief and reject the present Special Civil Application in limine with cost in the interest of justice."
18. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw also invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the further affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, which reads as under:-
"1. The respnt.No.4 most respectfully submits that the petitioner herein has preferred present Special Civil Application with a prayer to declare that the Clause-11, Sub-Clause No.4 prescribing Financial Status in Request For Proposal for Procurement of Medals, Additional Terms and Conditions and Specifications published by Sports Authority of Gujarat as irrational, arbitrary and bad in law. The petitioner has further prayed that the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to declare Clause 7.2, Exemption, Sub- Clause-2 as unjust, arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory and therefore the same be quashed and set aside and therefore the petitioner is required to be considered eligible in accordance with law. The respnt. no.4 has filed a detailed Page 23 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Affidavit in Reply and contended that the petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief in view of the facts and material on record.
2. The respnt. no.4 submits that pending the present Special Civil Application, as stated in Further Affidavit in Reply duly affirmed on 4.4.25, a decision to purchase Medals and Trophies from , Gujarat State Handicraft and Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., A Govt. of Gujarat Enterprise is taken and even Work Order is also issued on 7.2.25 and the same is satisfactory fulfilled. At this stage it is submitted that prior to placement of Work Order, a due procedure was followed and the file was moved up to the Principal Secretary, Sports, Youth and Cultural Activities Dept. as well as Minister of Sports, Youth and Cultural Activities Dept. for approval and pursuant to approval a Work Order dated 7.2.25 was issued in favour of Gujarat State Handicraft and Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. and copies of Noting Section as well as Work Order are annexed as ANNEXURE-A & B respectively."
19. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, and referring to the above averments, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submitted that since the petitioner had already filed the present petition, the State Government as well as respondent No. 4, in consultation with and with Page 24 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined approval of the State Government considered it appropriate to proceed with the purchase of medals for the 'Khel Maha Kumbh 3.0', which was already in progress and scheduled to conclude in March 2025. It was submitted that there was an urgency, and therefore necessary approval was granted on the proposal made by respondent No.4 by the Principal Secretary on 05.02.2025 and by the concerned Minister on 06.02.2025. Thereafter, the Work Order was issued in favour of respondent No.5 by taking into consideration the deviation permitted from the Policy regarding purchase of medals exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs from a Government organization. It was submitted that no malafide is alleged against the respondents by the petitioner, except the allegation of breach of the 2024 Policy. The decision was taken by respondent No. 4 in consultation with respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in public interest, so as to ensure that medals would be available in time for the conclusion of the Khel Maha Kumbh in March 2025. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Page 25 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Others, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 808, and National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited and Another, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 401.
20. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has also placed on record the original file containing the documents downloaded and printed from the Government's e-file system, reflecting the approval granted by the Principal Secretary and the concerned Minister to make the purchase without inviting tenders from respondent No. 5, which is a Government-owned Corporation. The said approval was granted keeping in view the necessity of procuring medals for the Khel Maha Kumbh, which was required to be completed in the month of March 2025.
21. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that in Page 26 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the case of Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 18 that it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fides on the part of the tendering authority are alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular tender especially with respect to technical evaluation is not to be second-guessed by a writ court. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the facts of the said case, referred to and relied upon the decision in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, wherein it was held that interference under Articles 226 of the Constitution is not warranted unless the answers to the following questions are in the affirmative: (i) whether the process adopted or the decision made by the authorities is mala fide or intended to favour someone; (ii) whether the process or decision is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have arrived at such a decision; and (iii) whether public interest is affected. It was submitted that, in the facts of Page 27 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the present case, none of the above questions can be answered in the affirmative. On the contrary, the answer to all of them is in the negative, as the entire process adopted for procurement of medals was neither mala fide nor intended to favour anyone. The decision was taken by respondent No. 4 after obtaining due approval from the State Government, as is evident from the approvals granted by the Principal Secretary and the concerned Minister. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision is of such a nature that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the relevant law could have taken it. It was further pointed out that the decision was taken in public interest, and no public interest has been adversely affected, particularly because the procurement was made from a Government-owned organization, from which no private individual would derive any benefit. It was, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for in respect of the impugned decision of the respondent authorities to procure medals from a Government organization without inviting a Page 28 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined tender. Referring to the decision in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited and Another, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 401, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once a conscious decision has been taken by the competent authority, who is the author of the tender conditions that a bid suffers from material deviation after considering the relevant clauses, it is not open for the High Court to interfere with such a decision in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22. It was submitted that, in the facts of the present case, the initial challenge made by the petitioner to the tender clause no longer survives in view of the subsequent decision taken by the respondent authority to award the Work Order in favour of respondent No. 5. The said Work Order was duly issued after obtaining proper approval from the State of Gujarat. Therefore, no mala fide intention can be attributed to respondent No. 4, as the deviation from the Policy was approved by the very Page 29 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined authority which had framed the Policy. Consequently, the allegations made by the petitioner in the amended petition are required to be negated.
23. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that the peititoner has amended the petition without there being any order passed by the Court after affirmation of the memo of the petition which is not permissible and therefore only on that ground the petition is liable to be rejected. It is not in dispute that the petition was affirmed by the petitioner on 11.01.2025 and at that point of time the date in paragraph 4.3 was left blank, which was filled up after the affirmation, as the filled up date is 13.01.2025. However, this Court also deems it appropriate to consider the matter on merits. The petitioner had initially filed the petition challenging clause 11(4) of the tender conditions relating to financial status. The petition was presented before the Registry of this Court on 13.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner did Page 30 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined not bother to pursue the matter till April 2025 and it was disclosed by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 4 that the Work Order had already been issued in favour of respondent No. 5, and the work had also been completed and the petition has become infructuous. This Court however, permitted the petitioner to amend the petition by challenging the action of the respondent no. 4 in issuing the Work Order allegedly in violation of the Policy as the Clause 8 of the Policy clearly stipulates that a Work Order of more than Rs. 15 lakhs cannot be awarded to a Government organization without a tender. In the present case, it is admitted that the Work Order issued by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 5 was for approximately Rs. 45 lakhs.
24. At the first glance, it appears that there is a clear breach and violation of the Policy, as respondent No. 4 has issued the Work Order in contradiction to clause 8(B) of the Policy. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition by this Court. In response to the Page 31 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined amended petition, respondent No. 4 has filed two affidavits placing on record the circumstances in which the Work Order came to be issued in favour of respondent No. 5 after obtaining the appropriate approval from the State of Gujarat - the framer of the Policy. Accordingly, this Court, vide order dated 11.11.2025, called upon the respondents to place on record the original file for perusal of the Court. During the course of hearing today, upon perusal of the said file, it appears that respondent No. 4 had moved a proposal before the State Government seeking approval for procurement of medals of about Rs. 45 lakhs from respondent No. 5, by requesting deviation from clause 8(B) of the Policy, which permits procurement without tender only up to Rs. 15 lakhs from a Government-owned organization. The reasons given by the respondent no. 4 is stated in the decision, notings which are placed on record along with the further affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 4, the relevant averments of which have been extracted hereinabove. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has referred to these Page 32 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined notings, which clearly show that the decision was approved by the Principal Secretary, Sports, Youth and Cultural Activities Department, on 05.02.2025 and thereafter by the concerned Minister on 06.02.2025. Only after obtaining such approvals the Work Order was issued on 07.02.2025 for an amount of Rs. 39,79,853/- for the medals and Rs. 66,700/- for trophies (Annexure-B, page
186).
25. It also appears from the record that the Work Order refers to the approval granted by the concerned Minister on 06.02.2025. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Work Order was issued in violation of the 2024 Policy, since the approval granted by the State Government amounts to deviation in the Policy. Considering the facts of the case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the decision taken by respondent No. 4, and approved by the State of Gujarat, is mala fide, or that it is a decision which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the relevant law could have reached, or Page 33 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined that such decision adversely affects public interest in any manner. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers (supra), has referred to and relied upon the decision in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (supra), which reads as under:
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts Page 34 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say:
'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article
226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and Page 35 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Montecarlo Limited v. NTPC, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 272, has also held as under:
"26. At this stage, it is to be noted that what can be said to be substantially responsive technical bid has been defined under Article 33.2. The High Court in the impugned order has observed and held that the bid submitted by the original writ petitioner can be said to be substantially responsive technical bid. However, it is required to be noted that when the author of the tender document, in the present case, JICC/JICA, had taken a conscious decision that the bid submitted by the respondent-original writ petitioner can be said to be non- responsive and suffering from material deviation, it was not for the High Court to consider/opine whether the bid submitted by the original writ petitioner is substantially responsive technical bid or not unless the decision is found to be perverse and/or suffered from mala fides and/or favouritism."
27. After referring to and relying upon the above Page 36 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers (supra) held that the interpretation of the tendering authority, in the facts of that case, could not be said to be perverse, and that the Court ought not to have interfered by giving by its own interpretation and not giving proper credence to the words of the tender conditions. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the facts of the case, has therefore held as under:
"12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is first necessary to set out the NIT's "Terms and Conditions/Qualifying Criteria".
Conditions 27 and 31 of the NIT, which are material to this case, state as follows:
"Terms and conditions/qualifying criteria
27. The firm/association shall have working experience of at least five years with documentary proof and work should not [be] less [than] 2 crores.
31. The firm/tenderer should have owned at least 30 nos. of vehicles both HMV/LMV and attached 200 vehicles with the firm along with Page 37 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined documentary proof."
13. Even a cursory glance at Condition 31 of the NIT would show that the 30 vehicles referred to, are "both HMV/LMV". The tendering authority has construed this condition to mean that both types of vehicles i.e. HMV and LMV, need to be included in the list of the 30 vehicles submitted by each bidder.
14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. In Afcons Infrastructure Lid. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., this Court held:
(SCC p. 825, para 15)
"15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having a authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the Page 38 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation b to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."
15. In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabhas, under the heading "Deference to authority's interpretation", this Court stated:
(SCC p. 776, paras 50-52) "50. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another fundamental problem. It is obvious that Respondent 1 seeks to only enforce terms of the NIT.
Inherent in such exercise is interpretation of contractual terms. However, it must be noted that judicial interpretation of contracts in the sphere of commerce stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting d statutes.
51. In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and CI-India have laid recourse to clauses of the NIT, whether it be to Page 39 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined justify condonation of delay of Respondent 6 in submitting performance bank guarantees or their decision to resume auction on grounds of technical failure. BCCL having authored these documents, is better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them. (Afcons Infrastructure Lid. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.4, SCC para 15)
52. The High Court ought to have deferred to this understanding, unless it was patently perverse or mala fide. Given how BCCL's interpretation of these clauses was plausible and not absurd, solely differences in opinion of contractual interpretation ought not to have been grounds for the High Court to come to a finding that the appellant committed illegality."
16. Further, in the recent judgment in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, this Court held as follows: (SCC pp. 502-503, para 20) "20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of Page 40 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming 9 public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority;
the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case."
17. In accordance with these judgments and noting that the interpretation of the tendering authority in this case cannot be said to be a perverse one, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with it by giving its own Page 41 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined interpretation and not giving proper credence to the word "both"
appearing in Condition 31 of the NIT. For this reason, the Division Bench's² conclusion that J.K. Roadways was wrongly declared to be ineligible, is set aside."
28. In the case of National High Speed Rail Corporation (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the facts in Montecarlo Limited and Another (supra) regarding the disqualification of the bidder wherin the original writ petition filed before the High Court had been allowed, thereby quashing and setting aside the communications of disqualification. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, in the facts of the case, no wrong had been committed by the Appellant-Corporation in taking the decision to reject the original writ petitioner's bid at the technical stage, based on the decision of JICC Consultant, approved by the Japan International Consultants Consortium, and further approved by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The Court observed that, in the absence of any mala fides, Page 42 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined arbitrariness, or favouritism, a conscious decision taken by JICC/JICA could not have been interfered with. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the facts of the case, held as under:
"27. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that under the contractual obligation, it was not open for the appellant Corporation and/or even the Republic of India to deviate from any of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and/or the decision of JICC/JICA. Therefore, in the absence of any allegation of mala fides/arbitrariness and/or favouritism, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in interfering with a conscious decision taken by JICC/JICA, which has been followed by the appellant.
29. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions, it can be seen that a court before interfering in a contract matter in exercise of powers of judicial review should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such Page 43 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"? And
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?
If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.
34. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that once a conscious decision was taken by JICC and JICA, who can be said to be the author of the terms and conditions of the tender document, taking a view and stand that the bid submitted by the original writ petitioner suffers from material deviation and the e said decision was taken after considering the relevant clauses of ITB, thereafter it was not open for the High Court to interfere with such a conscious decision in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and take a view that the bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was in substantial compliance."
29. In view of the above settled legal position, reliance placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the decision of AL Faheem Meat Exports Private Limited (supra) rendered in the facts of the said case, that Page 44 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined ordinarily the contracts given by the Government by an instrumentality of the State should be granted only by public auction or by inviting tenders, would not be applicable in the present case because when the Policy of the State Government was deviated in public interest and procurement was made by respondent No.4 without inviting tender from the Government-owned Corporation which was also approved by the highest authority, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or malafide or against the public interest. Similarly, the reliance placed on the decision in M/s. Indian Medicine Pharmaceutical Corporation (supra) would also not apply in the facts of this cases the Hon'ble Apex Court in that judgment relied upon A.L. Faheem Meat Exports Private Limited (supra) to reiterate that Government action must be just, fair, and reasonable in accordance with the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution, and Government can deviate from the root of tender of public auction for the grant of contract, such deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. On the contrary, the observations made by the Apex Page 45 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Court in paragraph 22 of the said decision would squarely apply to the present case. It cannot be said that the the respondent no. 4 has deviated from the root of tenders which has resulted into discriminatory or arbitratory action. The deviation has been duly justified, having received prior approval from respondent Nos. 1 to 3, thereby fulfilling the requirements of Article 14. Further, considering the completion of Khel Maha Kumbh 3.0 in March 2025, respondent no. 4 was required to procure medals and trophies for distribution within a limited timeframe. Due to the pendency of the present petition, no progress could be made in the ordinary course, and therefore respondent no. 4's proposal seeking deviation from the procedure of process of Tender came to be approved by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no interference is required to be made in the decision of respondent No. 4, as approved by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for issuance of the Work Order in favour of respondent No. 5 for procurement of medals and trophies for Khel Maha Kumbh 3.0. Page 46 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/623/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
30. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) STANCY GOMES Page 47 of 47 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 22:59:53 IST 2025