Delhi High Court Refuses to Rewrite Tender Eligibility Conditions, Dismisses Contractor’s Writ Petition
Reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review in government procurement matters, the Delhi High Court has held that courts cannot rewrite or dilute eligibility conditions framed by a tendering authority merely to accommodate a bidder. Dismissing a writ petition challenging the rejection of a contractor’s technical bid, the Court observed that the terms of a tender must be applied as they are framed and cannot be altered through judicial interpretation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that a writ court cannot create a “deeming fiction” where none exists in the tender document. The Bench held that if a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) prescribes a specific eligibility criterion, the Court cannot presume compliance or treat an incomplete, suspended or abandoned project as satisfying that requirement in the absence of an express provision in the tender conditions.
The case arose after a contractor challenged the rejection of its technical bid in a Central Public Works Department (CPWD) tender for the redevelopment of the General Pool Residential Colony at Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi. The petitioner argued that although one of its earlier projects had not reached completion due to reasons attributable to the Government, it should nevertheless be regarded as a completed work for determining eligibility under the tender.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that the eligibility clause required bidders to demonstrate completion of qualifying works in the manner expressly stipulated in the tender documents. Since the tender contained no provision deeming an abandoned or suspended project to be equivalent to a completed work, the Court ruled that it could not introduce such a legal fiction through judicial review. Doing so, the Bench observed, would amount to rewriting the tender conditions rather than interpreting them.
The Court reiterated the well-established principle that the author of the tender is the best judge of its requirements. Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining whether the decision-making process is tainted by arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or violation of statutory provisions. Courts are not expected to substitute their own interpretation of technical eligibility criteria or interfere merely because another view may also be possible.
Finding no arbitrariness or procedural illegality in the evaluation conducted by the tendering authority, the Bench upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s bid and dismissed the writ petition. The judgment reinforces the consistent judicial approach that tender conditions must be enforced as drafted and that constitutional courts should exercise restraint in contractual and procurement matters unless the decision is shown to be manifestly unreasonable or legally unsustainable.
The ruling is expected to serve as an important precedent in public procurement disputes, reaffirming that bidders must strictly satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed in tender documents. It also underscores that courts will not relax or modify contractual qualifications under the guise of judicial review, thereby preserving the autonomy of government authorities in designing and administering transparent tender processes.
