Patna High Court
M/s UKS- Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision was not arbitrary, mala‑fide, or perverse, and therefore the technical disqualification of the petitioner stands.
Summary
The petitioner, a joint venture of Umakant Singh and M/s Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd., challenged its technical disqualification in three PHED tenders, alleging that the Tender Evaluation Committee arbitrarily rejected its bids on hyper‑technical grounds and that it had complied with all eligibility criteria. The Departmental Grievance Redressal Committee upheld the rejection, and an Enquiry Committee later recommended cancellation of the tender process due to irregularities but did not specifically find the petitioner eligible. The petitioners contended that the joint venture agreement need not be attested by a First‑Class Magistrate and that the collective experience criteria were satisfied. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to meet the eligibility clauses 4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the Standard Bidding Document. The court examined precedents on judicial review of tender decisions and held that interference is permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala‑fide intent, or irrationality, which were not demonstrated. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ application, upholding the technical disqualification.
Issues considered
- Did the petitioner satisfy the eligibility requirements prescribed under Clauses 4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the Standard Bidding Document?
- Was the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision to technically disqualify the petitioner arbitrary, mala‑fide, or irrational, thereby warranting judicial interference under Article 226?
- Can the court substitute its own assessment for that of the expert tendering authority in the absence of proven procedural impropriety?
Subjects
- tender evaluation
- technical disqualification
- joint venture
- public procurement
- judicial review
- Article 14
- Article 226
- eligibility criteria
- hyper‑technical grounds
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13745 of 2025
======================================================
M/s UKS- Lokaditya Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Joint Venture), through its
partner, Umakant Singh, male, aged about 56 years, Son of Loknath Singh,
Resident of Mirchaibari, P.S. - Katihar, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer-cum-Special Secretary (Headquarters), PHED,
Patna.
3. The Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle,
Purnia.
4. The Executive Engineer, PHED, Forbesganj, Araria.
5. The Executive Engineer, PHED, Kishanganj.
6. The Executive Engineer, PHED, Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 16-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The following reliefs have been sought in the
present writ application:
“For issuance of any appropriate
order/orders,direction/directions commanding
and Directing Respondent authorities to
declare the petitioner Joint Venture company
technically successful in the bid evaluation
process of PHED Tenders No. 08/2024-25
(Group No. 4 Thakurganj), 09/2024-25
(Group No. 01) and 13/2024-25 (Group No. 1,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
2/16
2 and 4) of Kishangamj, Forbesganj and
Katihar respectively and to consider
petitioner's financial bids, which were
arbitrarily excluded by Tender Committee on
hyper-technical grounds. Despite full
compliance with substantive eligibility
criteria, petitioner has been declared
unsuccessful due to alleged minor defects
such as non-submission of affidavited JV
agreement before a First-Class Magistrate
and interpretation issues concerning
collective experience evaluation under clause
4.5A and 4.4.5(iv) of SBD.”
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, a
Joint Venture comprising Umakant Singh and M/s Lokaditya
Construction Pvt. Ltd., participated in NIT Nos. 08/2024-25,
09/2024-25 and 13/2024-25 issued by the Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar. The petitioner
submitted its bids for Group-4 under NIT No. 08/2024-25,
Group-1 under NIT No. 09/2024-25 and Groups-1, 2 and 4
under NIT No. 13/2024-25.
4. The petitioner's technical bids were declared
unsuccessful on the ground of alleged non-compliance with
certain conditions of the Standard Bidding Document relating to
the Joint Venture agreement and eligibility criteria. The
petitioner thereafter preferred complaints before the
departmental authorities. The Departmental Grievance
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
3/16
Redressal Committee, by its decision dated 31.07.2025, upheld
the rejection of the petitioner's bids.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner-Joint Venture had duly uploaded all requisite
documents and fulfilled the eligibility conditions prescribed
under the Standard Bidding Document (SBD). It is submitted
that the technical bid under NIT No. 08/2024-25 was rejected on
the ground that the Joint Bidding Agreement was not attested by
a First Class Magistrate and for alleged non-compliance of
Clauses 4.4(ii) and 4.4.5.(i) of the SBD. According to the
petitioner, neither the Notice Inviting Tender nor the SBD
requires attestation of the Joint Venture Agreement by a First
Class Magistrate and, therefore, rejection on such ground is
arbitrary and unsustainable.
6. It is further submitted that insofar as NIT Nos.
09/2024-25 and 13/2024-25 are concerned, the finding
regarding non-fulfilment of Clauses 4.5A(b) and 4.5A(c) of the
SBD is factually incorrect. Learned counsel submits that the
experience and work-execution criteria were required to be
assessed collectively in the case of a Joint Venture and the
constituent members of the petitioner-Joint Venture satisfied the
prescribed thresholds on the basis of the experience certificates
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
4/16
furnished along with the bids. It is argued that the petitioner had
also submitted the requisite affidavits and other supporting
documents and, therefore, there was substantial compliance with
all tender conditions.
7. Learned counsel further submits that although the
petitioner preferred representations before the competent
authorities against its disqualification, the Departmental
Grievance Redressal Committee, by its decision dated
31.07.2025, mechanically affirmed the decision of the Tender
Committee without properly considering the documents placed
on record. It is also contended that the reasons assigned by the
Grievance Committee were different from those mentioned in
the initial orders of rejection, which demonstrates arbitrariness
in the decision-making process.
8. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance
has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India reported in
(2013) 5 SCC 252 and N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain
reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 to contend that bids ought not to
be rejected on hyper-technical grounds and that the State and its
instrumentalities are required to act fairly, reasonably and in a
non-arbitrary manner in matters relating to public procurement.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
5/16
It is thus submitted that the impugned action is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents submits that the petitioner was rightly declared
technically disqualified for non-fulfilment of the eligibility
conditions prescribed under Clause 4.5(A) and Clause 4.4.5(iv)
of the Instructions to Bidders forming part of the Standard
Bidding Document. It is contended that a Joint Venture is
required to collectively satisfy the criteria stipulated under
Clauses 4.2, 4.5(A), 4.5(B), 4.7 and 4.8 of the Instructions to
Bidders and, upon scrutiny of the bid documents, the petitioner
was found ineligible.
10. It is submitted that the enquiry committee, after
examining the bid documents and evaluation process, submitted
its report dated 08.09.2025. The committee found that in several
tenders, bidders having similar deficiencies were treated
differently during technical evaluation and that the bids had not
been scrutinized properly. In view of the defects noticed in the
evaluation process, the committee recommended cancellation of
the tender/allotment process and initiation of a fresh tender
process, including NIT No. 13/2024-25 pertaining to Groups 1,
2, 3 and 4.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
6/16
11. On the strength of the aforesaid enquiry report,
learned counsel submits that the Department has already taken
corrective measures and, therefore, no further interference is
warranted in the present matter.
12. The limited issue that arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the petitioner satisfied the
eligibility requirements prescribed under Clauses 4.5(A) and
4.4.5(iv) of the Instructions to Bidders forming part of the
Standard Bidding Document and, consequently, whether the
decision declaring the petitioner technically disqualified
warrants interference by this Court.
13. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
14. From the records, it transpires that the petitioner, a
Joint Venture, participated in the subject tender process and was
subsequently declared technically disqualified. The stand of the
respondents is that upon scrutiny of the bid documents, the
petitioner was found not to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria
contemplated under Clauses 4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the
Instructions to Bidders.
15. Clause 4.5(A) prescribes the qualification
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
7/16
requirements necessary for award of the contract. Clause
4.4.5(iv), which specifically governs Joint Ventures, stipulates
that the Joint Venture must collectively satisfy the criteria
prescribed under Clauses 4.2, 4.5(A), 4.5(B), 4.7 and 4.8 of the
Instructions to Bidders. The Tender Evaluation Committee, after
evaluating the documents submitted by the petitioner, arrived at
a conclusion that the petitioner did not meet the requisite
eligibility requirements and was, therefore, liable to be declared
technically disqualified.
16. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the constituent members of the Joint Venture collectively
satisfied the requisite experience and qualification criteria and
that the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee is
erroneous. However, the question as to whether a bidder
satisfies the technical and eligibility requirements of a tender
document necessarily falls within the domain of the expert body
entrusted with evaluation of bids. Unless the decision is shown
to be arbitrary, mala fide or patently perverse, the Court would
be slow to substitute its own assessment for that of the Tender
Evaluation Committee.
17. This Court further notices that pursuant to a
complaint dated 28.08.2025 alleging irregularities in the tender
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
8/16
process, the Department constituted an Enquiry Committee
under the chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, Public Health
Zone, Bhagalpur. The Committee, upon examination of the
tender records, submitted its report dated 08.09.2025. The report
observed that in certain cases similarly situated bidders were not
dealt with uniformly and that deficiencies existed in the process
of technical evaluation. The Committee accordingly
recommended cancellation of the existing tender process and
initiation of a fresh tender process in respect of the concerned
works.
18. Further, a careful reading of the enquiry report
does not reveal any categorical finding that the petitioner had
fulfilled the eligibility requirements prescribed under Clauses
4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the Standard Bidding Document. The
recommendations contained therein are directed towards
rectifying deficiencies noticed in the overall evaluation process.
Merely because the Committee recommended cancellation and
re-tendering of the works would not, by itself, lead to the
conclusion that the petitioner was wrongly declared technically
disqualified or that it satisfied the eligibility criteria under the
tender conditions.
19. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Kalinga
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
9/16
Mining Corporation (supra) and N.G. Projects Ltd. (supra) does
not advance its case. There can be no quarrel with the
proposition that bids ought not to be rejected on hyper-technical
grounds. However, in the present case, the disqualification
pertains to fulfilment of eligibility criteria under the Standard
Bidding Document itself. Eligibility conditions form the
foundation of the tender process and cannot be treated as mere
procedural or curable defects.
20. This Court is conscious of the settled position of
law that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender
matters is extremely limited. The Court is concerned with the
decision-making process and not with the merits of the decision
itself. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, reported in (2007)
14 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interference
in tender matters is permissible only where the process adopted
is mala fide, arbitrary or intended to favour someone, and not
merely because another view is possible. The relevant part of
the said order reads as follows:
“22. Judicial review of administrative action is
intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its
purpose is to check whether choice or decision is
made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice
or decision is “sound”. When the power of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
10/16
judicial review is invoked in matters relating to
tenders or award of contracts, certain special
features should be borne in mind. A contract is a
commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and
awarding contracts are essentially commercial
functions. Principles of equity and natural justice
stay at a distance. If the decision relating to
award of contract is bona fide and is in public
interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of
judicial review, interfere even if a procedural
aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to
a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial
review will not be permitted to be invoked to
protect private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The
tenderer or contractor with a grievance can
always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary
grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry,
to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice
to self, and persuade courts to interfere by
exercising power of judicial review, should be
resisted. Such interferences, either interim or
final, may hold up public works for years, or
delay relief and succour to thousands and
millions and may increase the project cost
manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in
tender or contractual matters in exercise of
power of judicial review, should pose to itself the
following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made
by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
11/16
someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision made is
so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say:
“the decision is such that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance
with relevant law could have reached”;
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be
no interference under Article 226. Cases
involving blacklisting or imposition of penal
consequences on a tenderer/contractor or
distribution of State largesse (allotment of
sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and
franchises) stand on a different footing as they
may require a higher degree of fairness in
action.”
21. Similarly, in Silppi Constructions Contractors v.
Union of India, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated that the author of the tender document
is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements
and constitutional courts should exercise considerable restraint
while reviewing decisions of expert tendering authorities. The
relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“20. The essence of the law laid down in the
judgments referred to above is the exercise of
restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming
public interest to justify judicial intervention in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
12/16
matters of contract involving the State
instrumentalities; the courts should give way to
the opinion of the experts unless the decision is
totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does
not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate
authority; the court must realise that the authority
floating the tender is the best judge of its
requirements and, therefore, the court's
interference should be minimal. The authority
which floats the contract or tender, and has
authored the tender documents is the best judge as
to how the documents have to be interpreted. If
two interpretations are possible then the
interpretation of the author must be accepted. The
courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness,
irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With
this approach in mind we shall deal with the
present case.”
22. Reference may also be made to Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651,wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that judicial review is concerned
with reviewing the decision-making process and not the
decision itself, and that courts should not substitute their own
opinion for that of the authority entrusted with taking such
decisions. The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the
question of legality. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded
its powers?
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
13/16
2. Committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural
justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable
tribunal would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
Therefore, it is not for the court to determine
whether a particular policy or particular decision
taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is
only concerned with the manner in which those
decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty
to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly
put, the grounds upon which an administrative
action is subject to control by judicial review can
be classified as under:
(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must
understand correctly the law that regulates his
decision-making power and must give effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it does
not rule out addition of further grounds in course
of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of
State for the Home Department, ex Brind [(1991)
1 AC 696] , Lord Diplock refers specifically to
one development, namely, the possible recognition
of the principle of proportionality. In all these
cases the test to be adopted is that the court
should, “consider whether something has gone
wrong of a nature and degree which requires its
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
14/16
intervention”.”
23. Further, in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the interpretation of
tender conditions by the employer deserves deference and the
constitutional courts should not interfere unless the
interpretation is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or irrational.
The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-
SML (Joint Venture Consortium) [Central
Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture
Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 : (2016) 4 SCC
(Civ) 106 : (2016) 8 Scale 99] it was held by this
Court, relying on a host of decisions that the
decision-making process of the employer or
owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the
bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with.
Interference is permissible only if the decision-
making process is mala fide or is intended to
favour someone. Similarly, the decision should
not be interfered with unless the decision is so
arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say
that the decision is one which no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance
with law could have reached. In other words, the
decision-making process or the decision should be
perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or
erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by
GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
15/16
13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the
decision-making process or the decision of the
administrative authority is no reason for a
constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of
mala fides, intention to favour someone or
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be
met before the constitutional court interferes with
the decision-making process or the decision.”
24. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has not been
able to demonstrate that the conclusion reached by the Tender
Evaluation Committee regarding non-compliance with Clauses
4.5(A) and 4.4.5(iv) of the Standard Bidding Document was so
arbitrary or perverse as to warrant interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Mere disagreement with the
assessment of eligibility conditions by the expert body cannot
be a ground for this Court to undertake a fresh evaluation of the
bid documents.
25. In the absence of any material demonstrating that
the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee was actuated
by mala fides, arbitrariness or patent perversity, this Court finds
no reason to interfere with the technical disqualification of the
petitioner. The issue is, accordingly, answered against the
petitioner.
26. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
Patna High Court CWJC No.13745 of 2025 dt.16-06-2026
16/16
dismissed.
27 . Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
( Ranjan Kumar Jha, J.)
Atul, Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 19.06.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.