-
by sayum
29 July 2026 3:29 PM
In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the disqualification of bidders from a tender process initiated by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners, Just Universal Pvt. Ltd. And Indo Allied Protein Foods Pvt. Ltd., contested their disqualification from a tender for the supply of food kits during the Gauri-Ganpati festival. The Court upheld the State’s decision, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to tender conditions and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
The dispute arose from a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the State of Maharashtra on July 18, 2024, for the supply of food kits under the “Anandacha Shidha” scheme, intended for distribution during the Gauri-Ganpati festival. The petitioners participated in the tender process but were disqualified based on the technical evaluation report dated August 13, 2024. The disqualification was primarily due to the petitioners’ failure to meet the experience requirement outlined in Pre-Qualification Condition PQ5 of the tender, which required bidders to have experience in providing at least 200 laborers across 70 multiple locations within Government and Semi-Government establishments in Maharashtra.
Interpretation of PQ5: The Court closely examined the eligibility criteria specified under PQ5 of the tender document. It noted that PQ5 demanded specific experience in loading, unloading, or handling food grains and food items, alongside the provision of manpower across multiple government locations. The Court found that the petitioners’ submissions, which largely involved contracts related to meal preparation and supply, did not align with the requirement of providing laborers for external government or semi-government projects. Justice Amit Borkar stated, “The experience of engaging manpower for cooking and supplying meals is not the same as ‘providing laborers’ as per tender condition PQ5.”
Judicial Restraint in Tender Matters: The judgment underscored the principle of judicial restraint in matters involving technical and commercial evaluations of tenders. The Court reiterated that it is not its role to act as an appellate body over the decisions of tender evaluation committees unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fide intent. “The Court must respect the tendering authority’s interpretation of tender conditions, intervening only when there is clear evidence of irrationality or arbitrariness,” the Court observed.
Public Interest Consideration: The Court also took into account the public interest involved in the timely execution of the tender, which was critical for the distribution of food kits to over 1.56 crore beneficiaries before the Gauri-Ganpati festival. It emphasized that any interference at this stage would not only delay the distribution process but also potentially deprive beneficiaries of the intended scheme. “Interference in the tender process and its cancellation at this juncture will not be in the public interest,” the judgment noted.
The Bombay High Court’s ruling affirms the importance of adhering to tender conditions and the limited scope of judicial intervention in tender-related disputes. The decision reinforces the autonomy of tendering authorities to interpret and enforce tender conditions, provided their actions are reasonable and in the public interest. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for future tender processes, particularly in how courts assess challenges to disqualification decisions based on technical criteria.
Date of Decision: September 2, 2024.
Just Universal Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
