Patna High Court: Judicial Review of Tender Processes Limited to Material Violations

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court elucidated the parameters of judicial review concerning tender processes and the award of contracts, emphasizing that interference is warranted only in cases involving material violations of tender terms or decisions tainted by arbitrariness, irrationality, or malfeasance.

The case, titled Abhishek Kumar Singh v The State of Bihar & Ors., stemmed from a petition filed by an unsuccessful bidder challenging the dismissal of their bid and subsequent representation to the Managing Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC).

The petitioner contended that certain competitors had failed to submit updated certificates pertaining to fitness, pollution, and insurance for their vehicles, which they claimed was overlooked by the BSFC. However, the court noted that the petitioner’s challenge was limited to the issuance of a work order to other bidders without contesting their own disqualification in the tender process.

Observing that the selection of successful bidders was based on reports from relevant authorities, the court underscored the restricted scope of judicial intervention in tender proceedings. It reiterated that judicial review is warranted only when there are significant breaches of tender terms or when decisions are marred by arbitrariness, irrationality, or favoritism.

In its decision, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantive grounds for judicial intervention.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding transparency and fairness in procurement processes while maintaining a balance between the interests of bidders and the need for efficient contract allocation. By delineating the boundaries of judicial review, the court ensures that tender processes are conducted in accordance with established norms, thereby promoting accountability and integrity in public procurement.

As stakeholders navigate the complexities of tender processes and contract awards, the judgment serves as a guiding principle, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural fairness and legality. It reinforces the notion that judicial intervention should be reserved for instances of clear misconduct or procedural irregularities, thereby safeguarding the integrity of procurement practices and fostering trust in governmental decision-making processes.

If you like this law news, share it with a friend!