Facts of the Case

Farooq Hussain, a contractor from Poonch district, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu challenging the results of a Technical Evaluation dated 17.08.2023 and a revised Technical Evaluation dated 26.08.2023 issued by the Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) Circle, Rajouri-Poonch, in respect of a tender floated by the Public Works Department (R&B).

The petitioner's technical bid had been rejected by the official respondents on the ground that it did not comply with the tender notice and Standard Bidding Document (SBD). By the time the writ petition came up for hearing, the tender process had already culminated in an allotment order dated 31.08.2023 in favour of the fifth respondent, Mohd. Akram, a contractor, who had begun executing the work.

The matter was heard and decided by a Single Judge of the High Court on 22.09.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid and the resulting tender award, particularly after the contract had already been allotted and work had commenced.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's technical bid ought not to have been rejected, and the Technical Evaluation results dated 17.08.2023 and 26.08.2023 were liable to be quashed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The official respondents contended that the petitioner's technical bid had been correctly rejected for non-compliance with the tender notice/SBD, and placed reliance on Supreme Court precedent (including Tata Cellular-line authorities and Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489) holding that courts should be slow to interfere in commercial tender decisions absent mala fide or grave illegality.
  • It was also urged that the tender process had already culminated into an allotment order, the private respondent (Mohd. Akram) had commenced work, and any interference at this stage would harm public interest and burden the public exchequer.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reiterated the settled position that award of government contracts is essentially a commercial function, and principles of natural justice and equity 'stay at a distance' in such matters; judicial review will not be exercised to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide what are essentially contractual disputes.
  • Relying on Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India, the Court noted that a tendering authority is not required to give reasons for rejecting a bid, and that requiring reasons at every stage would bring commercial activities of the State to a standstill.
  • The Court found that the petitioner's technical bid had been rejected for non-compliance with the tender notice/SBD, and that he approached the Court only after the entire tender process had culminated in an allotment order and the private respondent had already started executing the work.
  • Holding that no grave illegality, mala fide or favouritism had been demonstrated, and noting that the work was already in execution, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition in limine along with pending interlocutory applications.

Important Clarification

This is a tender/contract-law ruling illustrating how narrow the scope of judicial review is once a government tender has culminated into an award and execution has begun. It has no connection to GST law; the dispute concerned technical bid compliance under a PWD works tender.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (limits of judicial review in contractual/tender matters)
  • General principles of government procurement and tender law

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was dismissed in limine in favour of the official respondents and the successful bidder, Mohd. Akram; no relief was granted to the petitioner, and the tender award/allotment stood undisturbed.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case No.: WP(C) No. 2306/2023, CM No. 5370/2023
  • Coram: Justice M A Chowdhary
  • Date: 22.09.2023

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.