-
by sayum
20 May 2026 1:39 PM
“Judicial review is not an appeal over administrative wisdom – eligibility conditions, marking system, and JV restrictions were neither arbitrary nor mala fide” – In a significant reaffirmation of judicial restraint in tender matters, the Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by waste management contractors challenging the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai’s (MCGM) tender process for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste (2025–2032). A bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the eligibility criteria, marking system, and Corrigendum-III amendments were all lawful, well-reasoned, and free from arbitrariness or mala fides.
Rejecting the plea for issuance of a fresh tender on earlier terms, the Court held:
“Petitioners have failed to make out an element of arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity in the impugned tender process. There is no warrant for interference.” [Para 30]
“Judicial Review Cannot Substitute Administrative Expertise”
The dispute arose after MCGM floated a fresh tender on 14 May 2025 for solid waste collection and transportation across 8 city groups for a 7-year period. After several modifications, the Petitioners challenged Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025, alleging that:
The experience requirement was unattainable;
The marking system for technical evaluation was arbitrary;
Joint Venture (JV) restrictions were unreasonable.
However, the Court firmly invoked established principles of judicial restraint in tender cases, citing precedents including Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corp. Ltd., and Silppi Constructions v. Union of India.
“The authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements... The court must not sit like an appellate authority over the wisdom of the tendering authority.” [Para 13]
“Seven-Year Experience Requirement Was Not for Continuous Work – Petitioners Misread the Clause”
One of the central challenges raised by Petitioners was the alleged requirement for seven years of continuous experience in similar projects. The Court decisively rejected this contention, clarifying that Clause A.1.1 only required bidders to have completed specified works during the last seven years, not across a continuous seven-year duration.
“The experience condition pertains to satisfactory execution of work during the last seven years. It is not necessary that the prescribed work experience must extend continuously for seven years.” [Para 18]
The Court also highlighted that the same condition existed in the 2018–2025 tender, in which Petitioners had successfully participated. [Para 19]
“Petitioners cannot selectively challenge experience conditions that previously benefited them.”
“50% of Marks for Work Plan and Presentation Are Justified in a Turnkey Project”
Petitioners next objected to the evaluation matrix, particularly the allotment of 45 marks for work plan and 5 marks for presentation, out of a total 100 marks. They alleged these subjective criteria enabled MCGM to favour select bidders.
The Court, however, upheld the rationality and necessity of such a system, stating that turnkey solid waste contracts necessitate detailed project planning and execution strategy. The Court observed:
“The scope of work involves end-to-end execution... The bidder is expected to conduct ward surveys and present a work plan. This justifies the marking structure.” [Paras 24–27]
It also noted that marks for objective criteria like past experience and volume of waste handled had been increased from 40 to 50, thus balancing subjectivity and objectivity. [Para 24]
“Challenge to Joint Venture Restrictions Rendered Infructuous – Corrigendum-III Removed the Limitation”
The Petitioners had objected to a restriction that allowed JV bidders to bid for only one group, unlike individual bidders who could bid for multiple groups. However, the Court noted that Corrigendum-III had already removed this restriction, clarifying:
“Any bidder can bid for any number of groups, subject to fulfilment of financial and technical eligibility. Hence, this ground is now academic.” [Para 29]
The Court also observed that the Petitioners’ insistence on raising this point despite the correction indicated a “desperate attempt to derail the tender process.” [Para 29]
“Courts Will Not Micro-Manage Public Tenders – Deference Due to Expert Agencies”
Throughout the judgment, the High Court underscored the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters involving public contracts. The Court noted that unless decisions are:
Arbitrary,
Irrational,
Affected by mala fides, or
Suffering from procedural impropriety,
no interference is justified.
Quoting Uflex Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Mahendra Realtors v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reaffirmed:
“The State has the right to structure contracts based on its administrative wisdom. Judicial review does not extend to second-guessing policy or contractual strategy.” [Paras 15–20]
Petitions Dismissed – No Mala Fides, No Arbitrariness, No Illegality
Ultimately, the Court concluded that MCGM acted within the bounds of law, and all the challenges raised by Petitioners were either misconceived or factually baseless:
“We are of the view that Petitioners have failed to make out an element of arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity... Petitions are accordingly dismissed.” [Para 30]
No costs were imposed.
The Bombay High Court’s decision in M/s. Veer Infra v. MCGM is a clear reaffirmation of constitutional deference to administrative expertise in complex tender matters. The judgment lays down that tender terms cannot be rewritten by courts merely to accommodate unsuccessful bidders, and that structured, evidence-backed evaluation systems, even if partly subjective, are valid when serving public purpose.
The verdict is a reminder that judicial review cannot be a tool for commercial rivalry, and that public interest, not private grievance, must guide interference in public contracting.
Date of Decision: 29 July 2025
