TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceed with fresh tender process with regards to the notification dated 10-01-2026 published in Local news Paper Kelo Pravaah, in the larger interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition." 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of catering services and is registered under the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 2017. According to the petitioner, he has experience in providing catering services. Respondent No.1 issued a tender notice dated 10.01.2026, published in the local newspaper Kelo Pravaah, inviting quotations for supply of breakfast, lunch and dinner to the trainees of Bhartiya State Bank Gramin Swarojgaar Prashikshan Sansthaan, District Raigarh (C.G.). The terms and conditions of the tender were also issued. 4. According to the petitioner, the tender portal was opened on 21.05.2026, and being eligible and experienced, he participated in the tender process. The base price prescribed for supply of food was Rs. 140/- per person per day, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n dated 02.06.2026, wherein he clarified his position and expressed his willingness to supply food even at the earlier rate of Rs. 109/- per plate. However, the said representation has not been considered and no reasoned decision has been communicated to the petitioner. 7. It is further contended that the petitioner had earlier successfully supplied food to the trainees pursuant to a tender issued in his favour, but his outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 11,28,236/- have not been paid by respondent No.1. Despite the same, the respondent proceeded to issue and finalize a fresh tender without first clearing the petitioner's legitimate dues. Learned counsel also submits that the tender notice was published on 10.01.2026, whereas the tender process was opened only on 21.05.2026, after an unexplained delay of approximately five months. It is argued that the tender document also did not prescribe any specific time limit for completion of the process, rendering the entire process arbitrary and unreasonable. It is, therefore, submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's quotation deserves to be quashed and the respondents ought to be directed to consider the petitioner's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court." By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly examine whether "decision-making process" was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, this Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action. "94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action." 27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574, while observing that the government contracts granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: - "50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in government contracts, if granted by the government bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot." 10. The principal challenge of the petitioner is to the rejection of his quotation in the tender process initiated by respondent No.1 for supply of breakfast, lunch and dinner to the trainees of the concerned institution. The petitioner essentially seeks interference on the ground that there was ambiguity with regard to the inclusion or exclusion of GST in the base price of Rs. 140/- per person and that, subsequent to rejection of his bid, he had expressed his willingness to supply the food at the earlier rate of Rs. 109/- per plate. 19. It is trite that in matters relating to award of Government contracts, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The Court does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of his bid on the basis of a subsequent representation. 24. The subsequent representation dated 02.06.2026, whereby the petitioner expressed his willingness to supply food at the earlier rate of Rs. 109/- per plate, also does not confer any enforceable right upon him. Once the tender process had been concluded and the petitioner's quotation had been rejected, such subsequent offer could not confer upon him a vested right to have the tender process reopened or to claim continuation of the earlier contract. 25. The contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 ought to have afforded him an opportunity to explain the alleged GST misunderstanding also cannot be accepted. The tender process was governed by the terms and conditions notified in advance, and the petitioner voluntarily participated therein. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was singled out for discriminatory treatment or that the tendering authority adopted different standards in evaluating the bids of the petitioner and respondent No.2. 26. So far as the petitioner's alleged outstanding dues of Rs. 11,28,236/- arising out of the earlier contract are concerned, the said....