Judicial Review in Tender Processes: Jammu and Kashmir High Court's Stance on 'Tailor-Made' Tender Conditions

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified the scope of judicial review in matters concerning public tenders. The Court emphasized that while judicial intervention in tender processes is generally limited, it becomes warranted when the terms of an invitation to tender are alleged to be "tailor-made" to favor certain participants, thereby undermining the principles of fairness and transparency.

Background of the Case

The case involved a group of professional transporters who challenged the cancellation of two earlier tenders and the terms of a subsequent tender issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on March 20, 2024. The petitioners contended that the tender conditions were arbitrary and favored certain bidders, effectively excluding their vehicles based on descending age criteria. BPCL defended its actions, asserting that the tender process was transparent and adhered strictly to the terms outlined in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).

Court's Observations on Judicial Review

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, presiding over the case, reiterated that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is indeed limited. However, he noted that judicial interference is permissible in instances where the terms of the invitation to tender are so tailored as to suit the convenience of a particular person or entity, thereby eliminating fair competition. The Court underscored that such practices could lead to arbitrariness, mala fide intentions, or procedural irregularities, which are grounds for judicial intervention.

Legal Precedents and Principles

The Court referenced several precedents to support its stance. In the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that while the government is free to set the terms of the tender, these terms must be fair, reasonable, and not intended to favor any particular party. Similarly, in BTL EPC Ltd v. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd (2023), it was observed that judicial interference is warranted only when decisions are arbitrary, mala fide, or discriminatory.

Implications for Tender Authorities

This judgment serves as a cautionary note to tendering authorities, emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness in the formulation of tender conditions. The Court made it clear that any attempt to craft tender terms that favor specific participants undermines the integrity of the public procurement process and could be subject to judicial scrutiny. Authorities are thus reminded to ensure that tender conditions are designed to promote open and fair competition, adhering to the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Conclusion

The High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that while judicial review in tender matters is limited, it plays a crucial role in upholding the fairness and integrity of public procurement processes. By asserting that "tailor-made" tender conditions designed to favor certain participants are subject to judicial scrutiny, the Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring that public tenders remain competitive and transparent, thereby serving the broader public interest.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community