Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of its bid in a tender process for a Battery Energy Storage System by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) -- The petitioner claimed violation of natural justice as no reasons were communicated for the rejection -- The Court examined the principles of judicial review in contractual matters, citing the Supreme Court decision in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa -- The Court held that judicial interference in tender matters is limited and should not be invoked to protect private interests at the cost of public interest -- The Court found that the petitioner had access to the tender portal where the rejection was displayed, thus there was no violation of natural justice -- The writ petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a bid in a tender process for setting up a grid-connected standalone Battery Energy Storage System -- The petitioner, Forceone SD Private Limited, participated in the tender invited by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) but was declared non-responsive -- The petitioner sought writs of certiorari and mandamus, claiming violation of natural justice due to non-communication of rejection reasons -- The Court held that judicial review in contractual matters is limited and courts should not interfere unless there is arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides -- Relying on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Court emphasized that evaluating tenders is a commercial function and principles of natural justice have limited application -- The Court found no violation of natural justice as the petitioner had access to the tender portal where the rejection was displayed -- The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of consideration was whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid without communication of reasons violated natural justice and warranted judicial interference in tender matters
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner
Law Points
- Judicial review of administrative action prevents arbitrariness
- irrationality
- unreasonableness
- bias
- mala fides -- Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions -- Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in contractual matters -- Courts will not interfere in tender matters if decision is bona fide and in public interest -- Power of judicial review should not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest -- Tenderer with grievance can seek damages in civil court
