Courts Cannot Undertake Fresh Bid Evaluation On Bidder’s Disagreement With Experts; Eligibility Conditions Cannot Be Diluted: Patna High Court
The Bench noted that eligibility conditions form the foundation of the tender process and cannot be treated as mere procedural or curable defects.
The Patna High Court has held that mere bidder’s disagreement with the assessment of eligibility conditions by an expert tender evaluation body cannot justify a fresh judicial evaluation of bid documents, observing that courts cannot substitute their own assessment for that of authorities entrusted with technical scrutiny.
The Court dismissed a challenge filed by a Joint Venture against its technical disqualification in Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) tenders, holding that the evaluation of bidders’ eligibility and compliance with tender conditions falls within the domain of the Tender Evaluation Committee and warrants limited judicial interference.
Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha observed, “…Mere disagreement with the assessment of eligibility conditions by the expert body cannot be a ground for this Court to undertake a fresh evaluation of the bid documents”.
Advocate Pramod Mishra appeared for the petitioner and Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, M/s UKS-Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Joint Venture), contended that its bids were rejected on hyper-technical grounds despite substantial compliance with the tender requirements. It argued that discrepancies pointed out by the authorities were procedural in nature and capable of being cured.
Rejecting the challenge, the Bench observed that eligibility conditions form the foundation of the tender process and cannot be diluted merely by characterising non-compliance as a procedural defect. The Court held that while minor technical irregularities may not always justify rejection, mandatory eligibility requirements must be satisfied in accordance with the tender document.
“…There can be no quarrel with the proposition that bids ought not to be rejected on hyper-technical grounds. However, in the present case, the disqualification pertains to fulfilment of eligibility criteria under the Standard Bidding Document itself. Eligibility conditions form the foundation of the tender process and cannot be treated as mere procedural or curable defects”, the Bench noted.
“…a careful reading of the enquiry report does not reveal any categorical finding that the petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility requirements prescribed under Clauses 4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the Standard Bidding Document. The recommendations contained therein are directed towards rectifying deficiencies noticed in the overall evaluation process. Merely because the Committee recommended cancellation and re-tendering of the works would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was wrongly declared technically disqualified or that it satisfied the eligibility criteria under the tender conditions”, it further noted.
The Bench further reiterated that judicial review in contractual matters is confined to examining whether the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality or patent illegality. The Court cannot reassess technical documents or undertake a comparative evaluation of bids merely because a bidder disputes the opinion of the expert body.
“In the absence of any material demonstrating that the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee was actuated by mala fides, arbitrariness or patent perversity, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the technical disqualification of the petitioner. The issue is, accordingly, answered against the petitioner”, the Court said.
The Court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on judgments concerning rejection of bids for minor defects, but held that those principles would not apply where the bidder failed to meet substantive eligibility requirements prescribed under the Standard Bidding Document (SBD).
Finding no arbitrariness or procedural illegality in the tender evaluation process, the Court upheld the technical disqualification of the Joint Venture and dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: M/s UKS- Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar CWJP 13745 of 2025
Appearances:
Petitioner: Pramod Mishra, Advocate.
Respondent: Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3.