Topic
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 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.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that forfeiting a security deposit after revoking a bidder’s blacklisting violates natural justice, as the penalty lacks independent legal basis and becomes punitive without procedural fairness. This ruling protects contractors in public distribution tenders from disproportionate financial consequences when administrative sanctions are withdrawn.
Madhya Pradesh High Court stays blacklisting order for failure to conduct a mandatory second sample test as required by tender conditions. The ruling reinforces that procedural fairness in procurement demands strict compliance with tender clauses, protecting contractors from arbitrary penalties.
The Bombay High Court upholds that hydro testing, air pressure checks, and repairs performed under a pipeline contract were fully encompassed by the original tender scope, rejecting claims for extra payment despite prolonged timelines and a without-prejudice settlement offer. This clarifies that contractors cannot seek incremental compensation merely because discovery of defects required more intensive methods - a critical precedent for infrastructure and energy sector contracts.
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.
Karnataka High Court rules that contractors cannot claim price escalation post-tender rejection, even if work commenced, as oral assurances are unenforceable against written tender conditions. The judgment reinforces that public procurement contracts must strictly adhere to their explicit terms, protecting government entities from unintended financial liabilities.