The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has delivered a significant ruling affirming that public procurement processes cannot bypass statutory safeguards merely because a single bidder emerges. The judgment underscores that even in the absence of competition, procedural compliance under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, is non-negotiable and essential to uphold constitutional principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s Ujjain Dreams, submitted a bid to operate boat services at Nakki Lake, Mount Abu, for the period 2025-2028. The respondent Municipal Board declared the petitioner’s bid non-responsive on grounds of insufficient experience documentation. Simultaneously, the bid of M/s Coral Associates was declared responsive and awarded the contract. The petitioner challenged the process as arbitrary, biased, and in violation of statutory mandates.
Procedural History
- 19 December 2025: Tender notice issued inviting bids for boat services.
- 6 January 2026: Corrigendum issued modifying Condition No. 21 of the tender.
- 13 January 2026: Technical bids opened; petitioner’s bid marked non-responsive, respondent No. 4’s bid marked responsive.
- 15 January 2026: Financial bid of respondent No. 4 opened at Rs. 3,96,99,999 - substantially below the base price of Rs. 7,61,00,000.
- 20 January 2026: Procurement Committee unanimously approved award to respondent No. 4 without preparing a justification note under Rule 68.
- 17 February 2026: Writ petition heard and reserved; judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the tender award to respondent No. 4, declaration of its own bid as responsive, and direction to conduct a fresh tender in compliance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the procuring authority could lawfully award a contract to a sole responsive bidder without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013, particularly the obligation to prepare a justification note and record the views of the finance/account member.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the rejection of its bid was arbitrary, as its partnership with M/s Maa Kshipra Boat Club should have allowed it to rely on the latter’s experience certificate. It further argued that the tender process was manipulated, evidenced by contradictory portal updates and the absence of a justification note under Rule 68. Reliance was placed on Premier Printing Press v. State of Rajasthan to assert that writ jurisdiction is maintainable where arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, or non-compliance with statutory mandates is alleged.
For the Respondent
The State and respondent No. 4 argued that the petitioner lacked requisite experience and failed to submit a no-dues certificate. They maintained that respondent No. 4’s bid was validly accepted after negotiations raised the quote to Rs. 5,76,99,999, which was still below the base price but reasonable in context of prior tenders. They relied on Tata Cellular v. UOI and Silppi Constructions v. UOI to argue that courts must refrain from interfering in commercial decisions absent malafides or perversity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that while judicial review in tender matters is limited, it is not absent. The principles from Tata Cellular and Silppi Constructions were acknowledged: courts do not substitute their judgment for that of experts, nor do they assess the merits of pricing. However, the Court emphasized that Article 14 mandates procedural fairness and prohibits arbitrariness.
"The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity."
The Court then turned to Rule 68 of the RTPP Rules, 2013, which governs situations where only one bid is responsive. The Rule mandates two critical steps: (1) preparation of a justification note by the Bid Evaluation Committee, and (2) inclusion of the views of the finance/account member. The Court meticulously examined the tender file notings and found no such justification note. The record merely stated that the decision was taken "unanimously," without any reasoning, analysis of reasonableness, or financial scrutiny.
The Court further noted that the initial bid of Rs. 3,96,99,999 was less than half the base price, and while negotiations raised it to Rs. 5,76,99,999, the authority had consistently accepted bids below base price in prior tenders - yet had progressively increased the base price each cycle. This pattern, coupled with the absence of any documented analysis, indicated a mechanical and arbitrary approach.
The Court held that the failure to comply with Rule 68 was not a minor irregularity but a substantive violation of statutory procedure. The absence of a justification note rendered the decision-making process legally defective. The Court also rejected the argument that the petitioner’s bid was rightly rejected, finding that the experience certificate of M/s Maa Kshipra Boat Club could not be attributed to the petitioner absent joint execution of the prior work.
Finally, the Court invoked the Doctrine of Public Trust from Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. CEO, emphasizing that public resources must be managed with transparency and fairness. The failure to ensure competition, even in a single-bidder scenario, undermined the very purpose of public procurement.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s bid was rightly rejected for lack of qualifying experience, but the award to respondent No. 4 was quashed due to non-compliance with Rule 68 of the RTPP Rules, 2013. The Court held that the tender process was vitiated by arbitrariness and procedural illegality. The impugned tender was set aside, and the respondent was directed to conduct a fresh tender within two months, strictly adhering to the Act and Rules.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compliance with Rule 68 Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now insist on production of the justification note under Rule 68 in all single-bidder tenders.
- Absence of the note, even if the bid price is negotiated upward, renders the award legally vulnerable.
- Finance/account member’s views must be explicitly recorded - not merely referenced.
Base Price Fixation Must Be Reasoned, Not Mechanical
- Authorities cannot arbitrarily inflate base prices year after year while consistently accepting bids below them.
- A pattern of accepting bids far below base price without justification invites judicial scrutiny under Article 14.
- Tender documents must reflect a rational basis for base price determination, not historical precedent alone.
Judicial Review Extends to Procedural Defects, Not Just Malafides
- Courts will intervene where statutory procedures are ignored, even in the absence of proven corruption.
- The mere failure to follow mandatory procedural steps under public procurement law constitutes arbitrariness.
- Writ courts may quash the entire tender process if the defect affects public interest, even if the petitioner’s own bid was ineligible.
