Bombay High Court Upholds Tender Decision, Rejects Petitions Challenging Disqualification. Court emphasizes the importance of public interest and judicial restraint in tender processes.

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by Just Universal Pvt. Ltd. and Indo Allied Protein Foods Pvt. Ltd., challenging their disqualification from a tender process for the supply of food kits during the Gauri-Ganpati Festival in 2024. The petitioners were deemed technically ineligible based on the tender's pre-qualification condition PQ5, which required specific experience in providing manpower at government and semi-government establishments. The Court held that the interpretation of the tender conditions by the tendering authority was reasonable and that judicial intervention was not warranted, particularly given the public interest in timely distribution of the food kits before the upcoming festival.

1. Introduction Overview of the petitions filed by Just Universal Pvt. Ltd. and Indo Allied Protein Foods Pvt. Ltd. challenging their disqualification from a tender process by the State of Maharashtra. 2. Background Details of the tender process initiated by the State of Maharashtra for the supply of food kits ("Anandacha Shidha") for the Gauri-Ganpati Festival. Description of the tender requirements and the disqualification of the petitioners. 3. Legal Issues and Arguments Summary of the petitioners' arguments, focusing on their claimed fulfillment of the tender’s pre-qualification condition PQ5. Respondents' arguments defending the disqualification, emphasizing the specific experience required under the tender conditions. 4. Court's Analysis Examination of the legal principles governing judicial review in tender matters. Discussion on the interpretation of tender conditions, especially the term "providing laborers." The Court's reasoning for upholding the tendering authority’s decision, emphasizing the importance of expertise and public interest. 5. Conclusion The Court's decision to dismiss the petitions, highlighting the need for minimal judicial intervention in tender processes unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or public interest being compromised. Affirmation of the importance of timely completion of the tendered work for the public good. 6. Outcome Both petitions were dismissed, and the decision to award the contract to another bidder was upheld.