HC Refuses to Entertain Writ in Tender Dispute; Holds Issues Involve Disputed Facts

HC Refuses to Entertain Writ in Tender Dispute; Holds Issues Involve Disputed Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that Respondent No. 5 fraudulently participated in public tenders by misusing credentials such as experience, turnover, and financial data of a separate partnership firm in the name of an LLP. It was further alleged that fabricated financial statements were used with the help of Respondent No. 6, and that the LLP claimed a merger without complying with statutory requirements under the LLP Act.

Also Read
High Court Quashes Time-Barred Assessment Signed After Limitation Period

The petitioner also contended that the same PAN was being used across different entities and that, despite claiming a merger, the partnership firm continued to operate and file GST returns. Based on these allegations, the petitioner sought an investigation, blacklisting of Respondent No. 5, and action against other involved entities.

Issue Before Court: Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters involving disputed facts relating to tender eligibility, alleged fraud, and misrepresentation.

HC Held: The High Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold. The court held that the allegations raised by the petitioner, relating to misrepresentation of credentials, validity of merger, and financial data, are all seriously disputed questions of fact that require detailed examination of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Also Read
India Notifies MoU with Japan for Double Tax Avoidance Agreement

Relying on settled principles laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that judicial review in contractual matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision.

It also observed that no patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or violation of statutory provisions was demonstrated. The Court refused to interfere in the tender process. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below