#Public Procurement Law

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.

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.

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.

Karnataka High Court ruled that requiring experience in both entry and parking fee collection under a tender is arbitrary and violates Article 14, though it upheld a three-year experience requirement as a valid policy decision. The judgment underscores that while courts defer to administrative discretion, unreasonable or discriminatory tender conditions will be struck down.

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.

Karnataka High Court rules that bidders can prove supply quantity in tenders using work orders and satisfaction certificates, rejecting rigid metric tonne (MT) requirements. This judgment eases compliance for contractors in government procurement, setting a precedent for flexible qualification criteria under administrative law.

The Bombay High Court has mandated that state departments must release undisputed running bills to contractors within two weeks, or face judicial consequences. This ruling reinforces contractual fairness in public infrastructure projects and protects contractors from financial collapse due to administrative delay, directly safeguarding public interest and project continuity.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a non-participant in a tender process cannot challenge its conditions under Article 226, especially when the petition is filed after a 7-year delay, rendering it barred by laches. This reinforces the principle that locus standi in tender disputes is restricted to actual participants, limiting judicial review of public procurement decisions.

Karnataka High Court ruled that an unreasonably high tender qualification threshold (₹60 crore) violates Article 14 by excluding capable bidders. The state's subsequent reduction to ₹29 crore sets a precedent for proportionality in public procurement, ensuring fair competition and constitutional compliance.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that any post-bid negotiation in open tenders violates Section 15 of the RTPP Act, 2012, regardless of potential cost savings or public interest claims. This reinforces the sanctity of sealed bidding and holds public agencies accountable to transparent procurement standards, affecting all state-owned enterprises and tendering authorities in Rajasthan.

The Delhi High Court ruled that non-participating bidders cannot challenge tender conditions after a significant delay, as it undermines public interest in timely procurement. The court emphasized that laches-unreasonable delay in seeking legal remedy-bars writ relief, even if tender conditions appear exclusionary or arbitrary.

Rajasthan High Court rules that non-disclosure of past debarment-even if expired-violates the Code of Integrity, constituting fraud that justifies contract cancellation and debarment. The judgment underscores that disclosure obligations extend beyond active sanctions, impacting all bidders in public procurement.

Madras HC rules that fraudulent practices in tender processes require proof of the bidder's knowledge of falsity; mere unauthorized issuance of documents by a third party does not invalidate the bid. This sets a precedent for stricter scrutiny of fraud allegations in public procurement disputes.