Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the tender evaluation and setting aside the award of the infrastructure contract on the ground of alleged non-compliance with the bid security format.
Analysis: Judicial review in tender matters is confined to examining illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, arbitrariness, mala fides, bias, or perversity. The employer or author of the tender document is ordinarily the best judge of the tender conditions and their interpretation, and courts must exercise restraint and avoid substituting their own view for that of the expert tendering authority. In infrastructure projects, undue interference may delay public works, cause escalation of costs, and harm public interest. On the facts, the tender evaluation committee's decision that the bidder's bank guarantee did not conform to the prescribed format and its acceptance of the successful bidder's technical bid did not disclose manifest illegality warranting judicial interference.
Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted and the award of contract to the appellant could not be quashed; the challenge to the appellant's selection failed.