Tender evaluation must follow the prescribed benchmark, and arbitrary bid rejection by ignoring justification rates was quashed.

Tender cancellation was held arbitrary where the authority ignored its own governing methodology, which treated justification rates as the primary benchmark for assessing bid reasonableness. The petitioners' bids were below those justified rates, yet the authority compared them with abnormally low rates from adjacent works and treated them as excessive without a proper basis. The court held that general reasonableness guidelines and internal finance checks could not displace the specific contractual benchmark already built into the tender process. The impugned cancellations were quashed, and the bids were directed to be processed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could cancel the petitioners' tender by disregarding the justification rates prescribed in its governing framework and by comparing the petitioners' bids with abnormally low rates from adjacent works, thereby treating the bids as excessive.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Article 226 permits review of tender action to ensure fairness and adherence to the governing policy. The material showed that the respondent's own tender methodology treated justification rates as the primary benchmark for assessing reasonableness. The petitioners' bids were below the justified rates, and the record did not show any basis for bypassing that benchmark and comparing the bids with rates that were themselves treated as abnormally low rates requiring special precautions. The alternative reliance on general reasonableness guidelines and internal finance checks did not override the specific contractual methodology already applicable to the tender process.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the earlier tender and the subsequent e-tender process were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned tender cancellations were set aside, and the petitioners' bids were directed to be processed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Tender decisions must be tested against the governing tender methodology, and a public authority acts arbitrarily if it rejects bids by ignoring the prescribed benchmark of justified rates and by relying instead on inapposite comparisons with abnormally low rates.

---