Patna High Court

Urmila SrivastavaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The tender authority’s decision to reject the petitioner’s technical bid was lawful and not arbitrary, so the writ was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a Class‑IV contractor, submitted technical bids for two tenders (Nos. 120154 and 120159) issued by the Bihar Education Department for renovation work at a DIET. The tendering authority disqualified her bids on the ground that she failed to furnish several mandatory documents required under the Notice Inviting Tender. The petitioner argued that she had complied with the eligibility criteria and that her higher quoted percentages should merit award of the work. The respondents contended that the disqualification was based on specific omissions, including GST, turnover, ISO, labour licence and experience certificates. The court examined the statutory principles governing judicial review of tender decisions, citing precedents that interference is permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala‑fide intent, or violation of law. Finding no evidence of illegality or arbitrariness and noting the strict compliance required for tender documents, the court dismissed the writ application.

Issues considered

Whether the tender authority’s disqualification of the petitioner’s technical bid for non‑compliance with mandatory tender documents is illegal, arbitrary or mala‑fide.
Whether the court can set aside the tender authority’s decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether a higher quoted percentage can override failure to meet eligibility criteria in a tender process.

Subjects

tender
technical bid
disqualification
judicial review
administrative law
public procurement
non‑responsive bid
natural justice
Article 226

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1479 of 2026
======================================================
Urmila Srivastava W/o- Anil Kumar, (Proprietor of Rudra Construction), At
Present Resident of- Adersh Colony, Digha- Danapur- Khagol, Post and
Police Station- Digha, District- Patna, State- Bihar, Indian, Pin 800011.
Permanent R/o- Village- Harpur Nag, Post and Thana- Harpur Nag, District-
East Champaran, State- Bihar, Pin- 845412.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna-
800001.
2. The Director of State Education Research and Training Board (SERT-
Board), Mahendru, Patna-800006.
3. The Assistant Engineer, State Education Research and Training Board
(SERT-Board), Mahendru, Patna- 800006.
4. The Principal of District Institute of Education and Training (DIET)
Chhatauni, Motihari, East Champaran.
5. The Junior Engineer, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET)
Chhatauni, Motihari, East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (25)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

4 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The following reliefs have been sought in the

present writ application:-

“(i) For set aside and quashing the impugned order
of disqualified the Tender No. 120154 vide Ref. No.
NIT-1 (2025-26) and also set aside the Tender No.
120159 vide Ref. No. NIT-2 (2025-26) (Annexure-P-
04).
(ii) For issuance of a Mandamus directing and
commanding the respondent authorities to restore the
Tender No. 120154 and 120159 of petitioner on
account of her fulfill all criteria of the terms and
conditions for allotment of work by way of this tenders,
and also allotted the work tender to the petitioner on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
2/9

her high percentage in the larger interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner,

claiming to be the proprietor of Rudra Construction, a Class-IV

contractor registered under the Road Construction Department,

Government of Bihar, bearing Registration No. 252700382, and

eligible to undertake government works up to Rs. 25,00,000/-,

participated in the tender process initiated by the Education

Department, Government of Bihar for renovation work in the

Principal and Staff Quarter of the District Institute of Education

and Training (DIET), Chhatauni, Motihari, East Champaran

pursuant to Tender No. 120154 (Ref. No. NIT-1 (2025-26)) and

Tender No. 120159 (Ref. No. NIT-2 (2025-26)) issued on

17.12.2025. The petitioner submitted her bids online on

26.12.2025 at 05:06 PM for Tender No. 120154 and at 05:23

PM for Tender No. 120159 and claims that in the comparative

statement of bidders she had quoted the highest percentage,

namely 22.10% and 17.70% respectively. However, the

respondent authorities disqualified the petitioner’s technical bids

through an e-mail communication on the ground that the

petitioner had failed to comply with certain mandatory terms

and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and had not

submitted several requisite documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
3/9

petitioner had duly participated in the tender process and had

submitted all the requisite documents in terms of the conditions

of the NIT. It is submitted that despite complying with the

eligibility criteria, the petitioner’s technical bid has been

declared non-responsive by the respondent authorities. It is

further submitted that the principles adopted for rejecting the

petitioner’s bid have not been applied uniformly in the case of

other bidders and they have been declared responsive.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

petitioner’s bid was rejected after due scrutiny of the documents

submitted by her and upon finding that the petitioner had failed

to comply with several mandatory requirements of the NIT. It is

submitted that the petitioner did not furnish the requisite

documents as required under the tender conditions (clauses 2, 3,

6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14) as well as Clause 17 of the NIT, and therefore

her technical bid was rightly declared non- responsive. In this

regard, learned counsel for the State has referred to paragraph

no. 8 of the counter affidavit, wherein the reasons for rejection

of the petitioner’s bid have been specifically stated. Paragraph 8

of the counter affidavit reads as under:

“8. That in response to the averment made in
paragraph no.-10 of the writ petition, it is stated and
submitted that the petitioner has made wrong statement
that the respondents have arbitrarily disqualified the
petitioner's Tender in this regard, it is humbly
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
4/9

submitted that the petitioner has failed to submit the
Tender form as per the terms and conditions of N.I.T.
i.e.
I. An Attested copy of GST Registration certificate and
2024-25 monthly return of GSTR-3B having 1 Cr.
Turnover.
II. An attested copy of certificate of Annual turn over 1
Cr. of last 2 financial year i.e. 2023-24 and 2024-25.
III. An attested copy of certificate of ISO9001-2015
IV. A copy of work order/copy of contract agreement/
completion certificate as per RFP attested.
V. An attested copy of Labour license certificate.
VI. Experience certificate of similar work with
minimum of 30% of NIT work value.”

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on

behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available

on record, this Court finds that the technical bid of the petitioner

has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to

submit several mandatory documents required under the terms

and conditions of the NIT. The relevant terms and conditions of

the NIT are extracted as under:-

“1. Bidder Information On letter head.
2. Legal Entity Documents as per RFP attested.
3. Adhaar Udyam registration Certificate attested.
4. GST Registration Certificate and 2024-25 monthly
return of GSTR-3 B having 1 Cr. Turnover attested.
5. Copy of Pan Card attested.
6. Certificate of Annual turnover 1 Cr. of last 2
financial year attested i.e. 2023-24 & 2024-25.
7. Last 2 year audited balance sheet and a certificate
from statutory auditor for positive net worth with valid
UDIN No attested.
8. Self-declaration by the bidder for not being
blacklisted/Debarred as per RFP.
9. ISO 9001:2015 certificates attested.
10. Copy of work order/copy of contract
agreement/competition certificate As per RFP attested.
11. Class-4 Registration certificate attested.
12. Character Certificate current attested.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
5/9

13. Trade License Current attested.
14. Labour License Certificate attested.”

7. It is well settled that in matters relating to

government contracts and tenders, the terms and conditions of

the tender document are binding upon all the bidders and strict

compliance with the eligibility criteria is required. The

evaluation of technical bids falls within the domain of the

tendering authority and judicial review in such matters is

limited. Unless the decision of the authority is shown to be

arbitrary, malafide or in violation of statutory provisions, the

Court would be reluctant in interfering with such administrative

decisions.

8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the

decision rendered while deciding the case of Tata Cellular v.

Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, wherein

following observation was made:

“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?
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
6/9

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.”

9. Similarly, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa,

reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that interference in tender matters is warranted only

when the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or intended

to favour someone, and that courts should not interfere merely

because another view is possible. The relevant extract 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
7/9

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
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.”

10. Again, in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur

Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the interpretation of

tender conditions is primarily within the domain of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
8/9

tendering authority and courts should normally defer to the

decision of the authority unless it is perverse or arbitrary. The

relevant extract of said order reads as:

“15. We may add that the owner or the employer of
a project, having authored the tender documents, is
the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents. The
constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender
documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity
in the understanding or appreciation or in the
application of the terms of the tender conditions. It
is possible that the owner or employer of a project
may give an interpretation to the tender documents
that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts
but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with
the interpretation given.”

11. In the present case, the respondents have clearly

stated that the petitioner had failed to submit several documents

as required under the NIT and therefore her technical bid was

declared non-responsive. The petitioner has not been able to

demonstrate before this Court that the mandatory conditions of

the NIT were duly complied with or that the decision of the

respondents suffers from any arbitrariness or illegality.

12. Merely because the petitioner claims to have

quoted a higher percentage would not entitle her to claim

allotment of the work if her technical bid itself does not satisfy

the eligibility criteria prescribed under the tender conditions.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal
Patna High Court CWJC No.1479 of 2026(4) dt.11-03-2026
9/9

principles governing judicial review in tender matters, this

Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the decision

of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s

technical bid.

14. Accordingly, the present writ application stands

dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

15. However, it is expected that the same principle

which has been adopted for rejecting the technical bid of the

petitioner shall also be followed uniformly in the case of the

other bidders, so as to maintain transparency and fairness in the

tender process.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J)

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Ranjit Jha