Father & Son Relationship Between Bidders Not Enough To Conclude Collusion & Cartelization In Tender Process: Bombay High Court
The Court refused to interfere in the Amravati tender process, holding judicial review is confined to decision-making, not merits of technical interpretations.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has held that a mere familial relationship between competing bidders is insufficient to establish an inference of collusion or bid-rigging. The Bench dismissing a challenge against the Amravati Municipal Corporation, noted that the tendering authority, as the author of the procurement documents, possesses the primary right to interpret eligibility conditions.
The Court further clarified that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in contractual matters is strictly confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. The Bench noted that while cartelization is a serious allegation, it must be substantiated by cogent and credible material, such as evidence of price manipulation or the ousting of competent bidders through anti-competitive practices.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta observed, “…While cartelization is a serious allegation that strike at the root of fair competition, the same must be substantiated by cogent and credible material. Mere relationship between bidders, cannot be an inference of collusion. What is required to establish in such a case is that the tendering authority has abused its dominance or that the competent bidder is ousted as a result of anticompetitive practices…”.
Senior Advocate Anand Jaiswal appeared for the petitioner and Advocate J.B. Kasat appeared for the respondents.
As per the facts, the dispute was an outcome of an e-tender issued by the Amravati Municipal Corporation on November 28, 2025, for road maintenance and repair works valued at approximately 1.59 crores.
The petitioner, M/s G.H. Khandelwal, challenged the rejection of its technical bid, which the Corporation deemed non-responsive due to a failure to meet experience criteria under Clause 3(j).
While the petitioner argued that the required 1 crore work value could be met through cumulative projects over three years, the Corporation interpreted the clause as requiring the threshold to be met within a single financial year. Additionally, the petitioner alleged cartelization between Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5, who are son and father respectively, claiming they shared machinery and resources.
The petitioner’s bid was marked as "Rejected-Technical" on December 15, 2025, leading to the opening of the financial bid of Respondent No. 4, who emerged as the lowest bidder. Although the High Court had issued an interim order on January 16, 2026, directing that no work order be issued, the Corporation had already directed Respondent No. 4 to undertake certain urgent patch works on January 12, 2026. The petitioner sought to quash the rejection of its bid and sought a declaration that the participation of the related respondents constituted impermissible cartelization.
The Bench found that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to cure deficiencies via communication on December 10, 2025, which satisfied the requirements of natural justice. Regarding cartelization, the Bench observed that both respondents were independently registered contractors and the tender conditions did not prohibit participation by related entities.
“Upon scrutiny, the contention does not sustain. The allegation of cartelisation is based primarily on the relationship between respondent nos.4 and 5 and certain similarities in the documents submitted by them. However, it is not in dispute that both respondents are independently registered contractors and have participated in the tender process in their individual capacities. The tender document does not prohibit participation by related entities. In the absence of any material to demonstrate bid-rigging, price manipulation or lack of independent decision making, the allegation of cartelisation remains unsubstantiated”, the Bench noted.
“…. The additional discrepancies pointed out in the technical personnel details, even if it assumes to be irregularities, are not of such magnitude as to vitiate the entire process in the absence of demonstrable prejudice. In the absence of substantive evidence, the allegations of cartelisation remains in realm of conjecture and cannot be a ground for judicial interference in present factual matrix”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule, concluding that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid was based on a reasoned and objective assessment. The Bench also rejected a subsequent prayer to stay the operation of the judgment, finding no exceptional or compelling circumstances to justify such an order.
Cause Title: M/s G.H. Khandelwal v. Amravati Municipal Corporation & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6315-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate, Radhika Bajaj, Advocate.
Respondents: J.B. Kasat, B.L. Borikar, Advocates.