Judicial restraint in tender evaluation: courts decline to overturn technical procurement awards absent arbitrariness or mala fide.

Judicial restraint governs review of tender awards: courts will not set aside a procurement authority's technical and commercial evaluation absent irrationality, arbitrariness or mala fides. Applying that principle, the court assessed requirements for power of attorney/board authorization, the permissibility of considering both online and hard-copy submissions where tender clauses conflicted, the nature of pledged TDR as earnest money, and alleged technical non-conformities. The Tender Evaluation Committee found respondent technically responsive and petitioner non-responsive; petitioner failed to plead impossibility or provide cogent material showing arbitrariness. Result: writ petition dismissed and contract award to respondent upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award of the contract to respondent No. 3 and rejection of the petitioner's bid (on ground of non-submission of power of attorney and alleged irregularities in respondent No.3's bid) is arbitrary, mala fide, or liable to be set aside; and whether the writ petition seeking setting aside the award and grant of contract in favour of the petitioner is maintainable.

Analysis: The Court examined the tender documents, the minutes of the Tender Evaluation Committee, and the affidavits filed by the parties. The Court analysed (a) the requirement of submission of power of attorney/board authorization in light of company law (Sections 179 and 173(3) of the Companies Act, 2013) and the petitioner's failure to plead impossibility of executing such authorization; (b) the apparent inconsistency between the Invitation for Bid (which mandated online submission) and Clause 13 of the Detailed Tender Notice (which contemplated sealed/hard copy submission), and the consequent exercise of discretion by the authority to consider online and offline documents; (c) the ambit of earnest money clause as it pertains to TDR/FDR and the pledged nature of the TDR submitted by respondent No.3; and (d) the petitioner's specific allegations of technical non-conformity in respondent No.3's bid (stages of pump, single line diagram, data sheet, make of pump and motor), including the respondents' denials and records indicating that respondent No.3 furnished requisite documents (including alternatives and hard copies) and that the Tender Evaluation Committee found respondent No.3 technically responsive. The Court applied the established principle that judicial interference in commercial/technical evaluation is limited and will be warranted only where the decision is irrational, arbitrary or mala fide, referring to the standard set in Central Coalfields Limited and related precedents. The Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the Tender Evaluation Committee's finding that petitioner's own bid was non-responsive and that the petitioner sought only direct award of contract rather than challenge to the committee's rejection of its bid. Having considered the record, pleadings and affidavits, and the public interest in prompt supply of the works, the Court found no cogent material to declare the award arbitrary or mala fide or to justify upsetting the authority's technical evaluation.

Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed; the award of the contract to respondent No. 3 is upheld (decision against the petitioner).

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not interfere with administrative or technical tender evaluation unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational or mala fide; absence of pleadings or proof to negate essential procedural requirements or to demonstrate such arbitrariness precludes setting aside the award.

---