Facts of the Case

This is a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the technical and financial bid evaluation in a State Public Works Department (PWD) tender for expansion and beautification of a State Highway. This is a government-contract/tender law dispute, not a GST matter — a reference to GST invoices arises only as one piece of documentary evidence relied upon in verifying a bidder's ownership of construction machinery, and the Court did not decide any GST-law question.

Respondent No. 5 had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15.12.2022 for the Ahraura-Madihan-Lalganj Road (State Highway No. 150) in District Mirzapur, with technical evaluation to be conducted through the "Prahari" software. The petitioner, M/s Jai Hanuman Construction, and Respondent No. 10 were among the bidders. Both parties raised objections against each other's bids — the petitioner raised five objections against Respondent No. 10, while Respondent No. 10 raised twenty-three objections against the petitioner. The District Level Committee declared the petitioner "non-responsive" on twelve counts; on the petitioner's representation, the State Level Committee remanded the matter for re-examination of invoices relating to the petitioner's machinery. On scrutiny, the documents produced by the petitioner were found to be without GST invoices, and the machines were not registered in the petitioner's own name. Although an internal communication briefly declared the petitioner "responsive," this was later found to be an error attributable to the Executive Engineer concerned, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Ultimately, the order dated 24.04.2023 declared the responsive bids and the decision dated 25.04.2023 declared the result of financial bids, both of which the petitioner challenged, alleging fraud and manipulation of data on the Prahari portal to favour Respondent No. 10.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the orders declaring the responsive bidders and the result of the financial bids were vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fide, or manipulation of the Prahari e-tender portal.
  2. Whether the petitioner had made out a case for a High Level Committee inquiry into alleged fraud in awarding the contract to Respondent No. 10.
  3. The scope of judicial review available to the High Court in tender/contract-award matters involving technical evaluation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The order dated 24.04.2023 declaring responsive bids, and the decision dated 25.04.2023 declaring the financial bid results, were liable to be quashed.
  • Data on the Prahari website had been manipulated to favour Respondent No. 10, and certain documents had been deleted from the portal, warranting a High Level Committee inquiry into the alleged fraud.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands and could not substantiate the allegation that documents were deleted from the Prahari App.
  • Under Clause 3.1 of the Government Order dated 25.08.2020, objections to bids could be raised within 72 hours, and the process followed by the District and State Level Committees, including the re-examination of the petitioner's machinery ownership documents, was procedurally proper.
  • The petitioner's own documents were found deficient — without GST invoices and with machines not registered in its name — justifying its "non-responsive" classification on multiple counts, and the brief internal communication declaring it "responsive" was an erroneous departmental lapse, for which the responsible officer faced disciplinary action.
  • Courts should be reluctant to interfere in technical tender evaluations for infrastructure projects absent clear arbitrariness or mala fide, relying on Supreme Court precedent including N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reiterated the settled position that courts lack the technical expertise to second-guess bid evaluations in infrastructure tenders and should not interfere unless the decision-making process is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or in breach of natural justice.
  • It found that the petitioner had utterly failed to establish arbitrariness, mala fide, or favouritism towards any bidder, and that the allegations against the State authorities were baseless and contrary to the record.
  • Holding that there was no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it.

Important Clarification

This judgment reaffirms the narrow scope of judicial review in tender-award disputes: courts will not interfere with the technical evaluation of bids unless the process is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to natural justice, and disgruntled bidders are generally relegated to a claim for damages rather than an injunction against contract execution. The mention of GST invoices here was purely as documentary proof of machinery ownership in the bid evaluation, and the case does not decide or engage with any GST-law question.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction
  • Government Order dated 25.08.2020 (Clause 3.1) — Procedure for bid objections

Decision – In Favour of Respondents (State/Successful Bidder)

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the bid evaluation and the award process, and declined to interfere with the tender decision. The ruling turned entirely on tender-law principles and did not decide any question of GST.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
  • Case No.: Writ-C No. 15519 of 2023
  • Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:196856-DB
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. and Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.
  • Date of Judgment: 12 October 2023 (Reserved on 25 September 2023)

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.