Patna High Court

M/s Kunal HousewaresversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SUDHIR SINGH RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court held that there was no ground for judicial interference as the technical evaluation by IIT Patna was not arbitrary or mala‑fide, and the court must not intervene in the tender process at this belated stage.

Summary

M/s Kunal Housewares challenged its disqualification from a government tender (NIT No. ICDS‑01‑25‑26) for supplying utensils, alleging violation of natural justice because the technical evaluation report of IIT Patna was not explained and the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity. The State argued that the tender documents required laboratory testing of samples and that IIT Patna’s report objectively found the petitioner’s sample non‑conforming, justifying the disqualification. The court examined the limited scope of judicial review in works‑contract matters and held that the technical assessment was a commercial decision best left to the employer, absent any showing of arbitrariness, bias or mala‑fide. Citing precedents that courts must exercise restraint in tender disputes, the bench declined to interfere with the tender process at this advanced stage. Consequently, the writ petition seeking quashing of the technical and financial decisions, a mandamus, and an interim stay was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s disqualification at the technical evaluation stage, based on the IIT Patna report, violated principles of natural justice warranting judicial intervention.
Whether the High Court can, under Article 226, interfere with a completed tender process and award of contract.
Whether an interim stay of the tender proceedings should be granted pending the writ petition.
Whether the tender evaluation exhibits arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala‑fide that justifies judicial review.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956

Subjects

tender
natural justice
judicial review
technical evaluation
disqualification
public procurement
Article 226
works contract
procedural fairness

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2081 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Kunal Housewares, a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956, having its registered office at 51/61, Manor Palghar Road, Netali
Village, Palghar (E), District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401404 through its
Authorized Representative Mr. Amitav Arun, aged about 52 years, S/o
Rajnikant Arun, Resident of House No. 337, Road No. 3-I, G.D. Mishra
Road, New Patliputra Colony, Patna, Bihar-800013.

... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Annex
Building-4, Old Secretariat, Patna-800001.
2. Secretary, Social Welfare Department, office at Annex Building-4, Old
Secretariat, Patna-800001.
3. Director, Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), office at ICDS
Directorate (Social Welfare Department), 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, Ram
Charitra Singh Path, Patna-800001.
4. M/s Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, situated at Plot No. 449-
450, Near HSIIDC Office Sector-53, Kundali, Sonepat, Haryana-131028
having registered office at Plot No. 20, Road No. 78, Punjabi Bagh, West,
New Delhi-110026.
5. Vaidya Industries through its Proprietor, situated at Plot No. A5, Khasara
No. 89, Besa-Ghogali Main Road, Beltarodi, Nagpur Maharashtra-440037.

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate and Mr.
Aayush Abhishek, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General and Mr. Amish
Kumar, A.C. to Advocate General
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Praveen Chandra, Advocate and Mr. Madhav
Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pronav Kumar,
Advocate and Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate

======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

4 25-02-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/12

2. The following reliefs have been sought for by the

petitioner in the present writ application:

“(i) For appropriate order/orders or
direction/directions or writ in the nature of
writ of certiorari quashing the technical bid
decision dated 05.01.2026, whereby the
petitioner has been disqualified without
giving clear and specific reasons in absolute
violation of principles of natural justice in
respect of NIT No. ICDS-01-25-26 issued by
the Directorate of Integrated Child
Development Services under the Social
Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna;
(ii) For appropriate order/orders or
direction/directions or writ in the nature of
writ of certiorari quashing the financial bid
decision dated 09.01.2026 whereby
respondents 4 and 5 have been declared
successful without giving the petitioner a fair
opportunity in absolute violation of
principles of natural justice in respect of NIT
No. ICDS-01/25-26 issued by the Directorate
of Integrated Child Development Services
under the Social Welfare Department, Bihar;
(iii) For appropriate order/orders or
direction/directions or writ in the nature of
writ of mandamus for directions upon the
Respondents to hold the petitioner qualified
and allow the present petitioner to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/12

participate in the onging tender proceedings
under NIT No. ICDS-01/25-26 issued by the
Directorate of Integrated Child Development
Services under the Social Welfare
Department, Bihar;
(iv) For appropriate order/orders or
direction/directions in the nature of writ of
mandamus for issuance of an ad-interim stay
on the proceedings in respect of the tender
bearing NIT No. ICDS-01/25-26, issued by
the Directorate of Integrated Child
Development Services under the Social
Welfare Department of Bihar, during the
pendency of the instant writ application and
refrain from issuing work order in favour of
the purported successful bidder or create any
third-party rights in favour of purported
successful bidder;
(v) Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit
and appropriate by this Court.”

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the

petitioner participated in NIT No. ICDS – 01/25-26 dated

22.08.2025 for supply of utensils. The bids for the said NIT

were to be evaluated in three stages: i) Evaluation of Physical

Samples; ii) Technical Evaluation and iii) Financial Evaluation.

As per Clause 3.18 A (x) of the Tender Document, the bidders

had to submit sample of utensils for physical evaluation. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
4/12

petitioner submitted the same, however, vide e-mail dated

05.01.2026, he was disqualified at the first stage itself on the

ground that certain non-conformities were found in the sample

submitted by the petitioner. By way of the present writ

application, the petitioner challenges his disqualification in the

present tender process.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has been wrongly disqualified at the very first

stage, and that the samples which were submitted by the

petitioner were as per the requirements of the NIT. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner got

the samples, which were submitted, checked independently and

they were as per the requirement of the NIT, and he made a

representation to the respondent authorities with a copy of the

same, but has received no response from them. Learned counsel

further submits that the manner and the process by which the

petitioner has been disqualified is replete with multiple

instances of violation of the terms of Tender Document, and is

in absolute violation of principles of Natural Justice.

5. Learned counsel for the State, submits that in the

present tender process, as per Clause 3.18 A (x) of the NIT, the

samples of utensils were to be sent to a Central Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
5/12

Laboratory for testing and only those bidders whose samples

successfully qualified in laboratory test would be eligible for

opening of technical bid. The relevant clause is reproduced as

under:

“A. General Eligibility Criteria
…
(x) The sample of Utensils shall be
sent to a Central Government laboratory for
testing. Only those bidders whose samples
successfully qualify in the laboratory test shall be
eligible for opening of the Technical Bid, while
the bids of unsuccessful bidders shall be
rejected.”

6. Learned counsel for the State further submits

that in compliance with the said provision, the samples were

sent to IIT, Patna (Department of Metallurgy & Material

Engineering). IIT, Patna submitted its report dated 16.12.2025,

based on which impugned action in the present tender process

was taken. The said report is marked as ‘Annexure R/1 to 3B’ to

the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 3.

Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of the said

report it is clear that the quality of samples of utensil submitted

by the petitioner was not as per specifications and materials

mentioned in the NIT.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
6/12

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that although the report categorically states that the

petitioner’s sample are not as per the requirements of the NIT,

but a detailed perusal of the report would show that the samples

supplied by the petitioner substantially meet the standards

mentioned in NIT. Learned counsel further submits that only

due to certain insignificant differences in the sample supplied by

the petitioner, the technical bid of the petitioner had not been

opened. Those insignificant differences/infirmities could not

have brought any material change in the sample supplied by the

petitioner.

8. Further, learned counsel for the State, and the

private respondents submit that the present tender process has

attained finality. In the present tender process, work has already

been awarded to the private respondents, and an agreement has

also been executed in respect of the same. It is submitted that a

portion of work has already been completed, and as such,

interference by the court at a belated stage is not warranted.

9. The limited issue for consideration before this

court is that whether this Court should exercise its discretionary

powers to interfere in the ongoing tender process at this belated

stage, specifically in light of the adverse findings provided by
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
7/12

an independent expert body, namely IIT Patna.

10. From perusal of the Clause 3.18 A (x) of NIT, it

is evident that the technical bid of a bidder could be opened only

if the sample report was favourable. In the present case, the

samples were sent to the IIT, Patna for testing. Altogether, 8

participants’ sample were sent for testing, out of which, for 5

participants, adverse remark was made in respect to the sample

submitted including the petitioner, and only 3 were declared

successful.

11. The authorities have acted on the basis of the

report submitted by the IIT, Patna. The petitioner was

disqualified in the same, and thus, the technical bid of the

petitioner was not opened. Consequently, the petitioner was

disqualified in the tender process. The power of Judicial Review

in matters relating to works-contract are very limited and unless

some arbitrariness or illegality is shown on the face of record,

the courts cannot interfere in works-contract/tender matters.

Thus, we do not think it would be appropriate to interfere in the

said report submitted by the expert body, i.e., IIT, Patna.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again

reiterated the limited power of Judicial Review available under

Article 226 to the High Courts in works-contract matter, and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
8/12

courts should be very cautious while interfering in the same. In

Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC

517, the Hon’ble court held as under:

“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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
9/12

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.”

13. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur

Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employer is best person to

understand and appreciate the requirements of a tender.

Ordinarily the court should defer to this view unless some

perversity is shown in the understanding/appreciation. The

courts are expected to exercise restraint in this regards. The

relevant paragraphs of the Judgment are reproduced as under:

“12. In Dwarkadas Marfatia and
Sons v. Port of Bombay it was held that the
constitutional courts are concerned with the
decision-making process. Tata Cellular v. Union
of India went a step further and held that a
decision if challenged (the decision having been
arrived at through a valid process), the
constitutional courts can interfere if the decision
is perverse. However, the constitutional courts
are expected to exercise restraint in interfering
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
10/12

with the administrative decision and ought not to
substitute its view for that of the administrative
authority. This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal
v. State of Orissa as mentioned in Central
Coalfields.
…
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.”

14. Further, while deciding technical issues court

should be even more reluctant to interfere, and the discretionary

power should be exercised with a great deal of caution. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors

v. Union of India reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, held as
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
11/12

under:

“19. This Court being the guardian
of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere
when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala
fides and bias. However, this Court in all the
aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and
again that courts should exercise a lot of
restraint while exercising their powers of
judicial review in contractual or commercial
matters. This Court is normally loathe to
interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-
cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or
irrationality is made out. One must remember
that today many public sector undertakings
compete with the private industry. The contracts
entered into between private parties are not
subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No
doubt, the bodies which are State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are
bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of superior courts but this
discretionary power must be exercised with a
great deal of restraint and caution. The courts
must realise their limitations and the havoc
which needless interference in commercial
matters can cause. In contracts involving
technical issues the courts should be even more
reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do
not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate
Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2026(4) dt.25-02-2026
12/12

upon technical issues beyond our domain. As
laid down in the judgments cited above the
courts should not use a magnifying glass while
scanning the tenders and make every small
mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the
courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the
government and public sector undertakings in
matters of contract. Courts must also not
interfere where such interference will cause
unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.”
15. Considering the materials on record, and in

light of the discussions made above, the limited issue framed for

consideration is answered in negative. As such, at this belated

stage of the impugned tender process, we are not inclined to

interfere with the same.

16. Accordingly, the present writ application stands

dismissed.

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

disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J)

U.K./- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…