Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Gopal Keny, a registered Class IA contractor with over three decades of experience, challenged the rejection of his technical bid in a tender issued by the Public Works Department for construction of approaches to Bagwada Bridge at Morle in Poriem Constituency, Sattari Taluka. The Tender Evaluation Committee declared his bid non-responsive for failing to comply with an essential eligibility condition introduced by a corrigendum dated 16 October 2025 and a Circular dated 13 October 2025. The petitioner argued that he satisfied all substantive requirements and that the authorities adopted an erroneous interpretation. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to submit a work completion certificate for a similar work as required. The High Court, exercising its limited power of judicial review under Article 226, found no arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or procedural impropriety in the decision. The court held that the interpretation of tender conditions is within the domain of the employer and that essential conditions must be strictly complied with. The petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the technical bid and the award of the work to Respondent No.4.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Tender Matters - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court's power to interfere with tender decisions is limited to cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or procedural impropriety; the court does not sit as an appellate authority over the tender evaluation committee's interpretation of conditions. (Paras 2, 10-15)
B) Contract Law - Tender - Essential Eligibility Condition - Corrigendum dated 16 October 2025 and Circular dated 13 October 2025 - The petitioner failed to submit a work completion certificate for a similar work as required by the corrigendum, which was an essential condition; the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision to reject the bid as non-responsive was upheld as not arbitrary. (Paras 3-8, 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive by the Tender Evaluation Committee was arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or procedurally improper so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid and the award of work to Respondent No.4.
Law Points
- Judicial review of tender matters is limited to arbitrariness
- irrationality
- mala fides or procedural impropriety
- Interpretation of tender conditions is within the domain of the employer unless perverse
- Essential eligibility conditions must be strictly complied with
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 261
WRIT PETITION NO.486 OF 2026
Valmiki Menezes, Hiten S. Venegavkar
Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande with Mr. Chirag Angle for Petitioner; Mr. Devidas Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Prashil Arolkar for Respondent Nos.1,2,3; Mr Vinoj K. Daniel with Mr Nachiket D. Naik for Respondent No.4
The State of Goa, The Public Works Department Government of Goa, The Office of the Executive Engineer, Works Division XXIII, Public Works Department, Bismilla Constructions, M/s. Noor Engineering
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging rejection of technical bid in a public tender.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee declaring his technical bid as non-responsive and to set aside the award of work to Respondent No.4.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's technical bid was rejected as non-responsive for alleged non-compliance with an essential eligibility condition introduced by corrigendum dated 16 October 2025 and Circular dated 13 October 2025.
Issues
Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive by the Tender Evaluation Committee was arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or procedurally improper so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he satisfied all substantive requirements and that the authorities adopted an erroneous interpretation of the corrigendum and circular.
Respondents contended that the Petitioner failed to comply with an essential eligibility condition forming part of the tender document and was rightly declared technically non-responsive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court's power to interfere with tender decisions under Article 226 is limited to cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or procedural impropriety; the interpretation of tender conditions is within the domain of the employer and essential conditions must be strictly complied with.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a challenge to the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee declaring the technical bid of the Petitioner as non-responsive...
The controversy, therefore, lies in determining whether the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid suffers from arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or procedural impropriety so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the rejection of his technical bid. The petition was taken up for final disposal with consent of parties.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
