#public procurement

Calcutta HC directed SAIL to re-invite the MSME petitioner, allowing it to match the lowest-bidder’s price because the bid fell within the 15 % band mandated by the 2012 MSE purchase-preference policy. The court held that not ticking the MSME option on GeM does not defeat eligibility, and a mandamus can compel compliance. The ruling safeguards registered MSMEs in public procurement, ensuring they can compete even if the portal preference box is missed.

Delhi HC stayed NHAI's debarment of a joint-venture independent engineer because the authority failed to issue the graded warnings required by the contract’s TOR, and a policy circular cannot override the agreement. The ruling obliges NHAI to follow the step-wise warning mechanism in any future debarment, safeguarding consultants from arbitrary exclusion.

The Supreme Court held that non-participating bidders' four-month delay in challenging tender conditions bars relief under the doctrine of delay and laches. It also distinguished Vinishma Technologies on the Delhi office/warehouse requirement, leaving its validity open. The decision safeguards procurement timelines from strategic challenges by non-participants.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an interlocutory injunction in a separate trademark dispute does not disqualify a bidder and that a change in shareholding does not erase the bidder’s earlier project experience required under the tender. This clarifies that eligibility is judged on substantive qualifications, not on unrelated litigation or post-tender ownership changes, impacting all participants in government procurements.

The Bombay High Court set aside a one-year blacklisting of a contractor because the municipal corporation failed to issue a specific show-cause notice, breaching natural-justice norms. The ruling obliges public bodies to afford bidders a hearing before imposing blacklist penalties, safeguarding procedural fairness for all prospective contractors.

The Gauhati High Court nullified a tender cancellation because the authority failed to give reasons as mandated by Section 26(3) of the Assam Procurement Act, 2017, and ordered the contract awarded to the petitioner, the lowest evaluated bidder. The ruling underscores the duty to communicate cancellation reasons, protecting bidders in future procurements.

The Kerala High Court ruled that the state cannot withhold or claim damages upon contract termination unless it proves actual financial loss, mandating the return of the security deposit with 9% interest. This reinforces the principle that liquidated damages must reflect real harm, not serve as punitive leverage in public procurement - a critical safeguard for contractors.

Bombay High Court upholds strict compliance with tender conditions, ruling that prohibition on fractional quotations is mandatory and non-negotiable. The judgment reinforces that administrative discretion in public procurement cannot override explicit tender stipulations, impacting bidders and contracting authorities alike.

Kerala High Court reinforces Store Purchase Manual provisions, mandating annual procurement estimates based on 3-5 years' consumption data to prevent ad-hoc purchases. The ruling directs the Travancore Devaswom Board to implement a digitised inventory system, ensuring fiscal discipline and transparency in public asset management.

Andhra Pradesh High Court dismisses writ petitions challenging tender conditions for Balamrutham supply, reinforcing that courts cannot substitute administrative discretion with judicial wisdom unless arbitrariness is proven. The ruling clarifies the scope of judicial review in public procurement under Article 14, impacting contractors and government agencies alike.

Allahabad High Court rules that minor, curable defects like incorrect beneficiary names in bank guarantees cannot justify rejecting the lowest tender bid. The Court emphasizes fairness in public procurement, directing authorities to evaluate financial bids and accept corrected documents to prevent arbitrary exclusions.

Karnataka High Court rules that debarment under the KTPP Act for submitting forged work experience certificates is valid even if procedural lapses occur, prioritizing fraud prevention over technicalities. The ruling reinforces that proportionality and natural justice claims cannot override substantive fraud in public procurement.

Rajasthan High Court rules that shared premises, common chartered accountant, and notary between bidders create a rebuttable presumption of conflict of interest under Rule 81(3)(D) of the RTPP Rules, justifying disqualification even without evidence of actual bid rigging. The ruling sets a strict standard for bidder independence in public procurement.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that once a bidder relies on tender conditions-such as a guaranteed 45-day mela duration-the government cannot arbitrarily shorten it. This reinforces the principle of legitimate expectation in public procurement, protecting contractors who invest time and capital based on official terms, and sets a precedent for enforcing contractual integrity against administrative overreach.

The Karnataka High Court held that a pharmaceutical supplier’s blacklisting for supplying non-standard quality drugs under a government tender clause is valid even if the Drug Inspectorate failed to follow statutory procedures, as long as the supplier received a specific show-cause notice and opportunity to respond in writing. This reinforces that contractual enforcement in public procurement can proceed independently of administrative lapses, setting a critical precedent for tendering authorities and drug manufacturers alike.