The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, has upheld the government’s discretion in awarding contracts and dismissed multiple petitions challenging the tendering process. The court emphasized that judicial review should not interfere in administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or tainted by malafides.
Background of the Case
The case involved multiple writ petitions (WPC No. 482/2025, WPC No. 548/2025, WPC No. 550/2025, WPC No. 551/2025, WPC No. 843/2025, WPC No. 848/2025, and WPC No. 853/2025) challenging the award of a government tender for infrastructure development projects in industrial areas across various districts in Chhattisgarh. The petitioners, including M/s. Shraddha Construction Company, contested the rejection of their bids, alleging arbitrary disqualification in favor of M/s. Anandi Builders.
The Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC), responsible for the tendering process, defended its decision by asserting that the disqualified bidders had failed to meet essential eligibility criteria, including the available bid capacity (ABC) and technical requirements.
Legal Issues Involved
Judicial Review of Tender Decisions: Whether the High Court can intervene in government contract awards when administrative discretion is exercised.
Transparency and Fairness in Bidding: Whether CSIDC acted arbitrarily in rejecting bids and awarding the contract to M/s. Anandi Builders.
Application of Article 14 (Right to Equality): Whether the selection process violated constitutional principles by showing favoritism.
Scope of Interference in Technical Matters: The role of courts in evaluating technical bid qualifications.
Key Observations of the Court
The bench noted :
“The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance.”
“Judicial review does not allow courts to act as appellate authorities in contract matters. The court must examine only whether the decision-making process was fair, transparent, and free from bias.”
“The courts should be reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as the courts lack the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues.”
“In government contracts, fairness, equality, and rule of law must be upheld, but the tendering authority has discretion to determine eligibility based on objective criteria.”
Decision of the Court
The court found that the rejection of bids was based on valid and objective criteria, particularly the failure of petitioners to meet the required bid capacity and technical conditions. It held that:
CSIDC’s decision to disqualify the petitioners was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
The awarded bidder, M/s. Anandi Builders, had met all necessary qualifications and was rightfully awarded the contract.
Judicial intervention in technical matters should be minimal unless blatant arbitrariness or mala fide intent is established.
The work order had already been issued, and the project was time-sensitive, requiring completion by March 31, 2025. Any interference would lead to unnecessary delays and financial losses for the state.
Accordingly, the court dismissed all petitions, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. No order as to costs was made.
