Technical Evaluation or Comparison in Tender Matters by Court Impermissible: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has reinforced the principle of judicial restraint in tender matters, ruling that the authority authoring a tender is the best judge of its requirements and interpretations, especially regarding technical eligibility criteria. The Bench upheld Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited’s (BPCL) methodology of calculating 'annualized basic value' for multi-year contracts, affirming the disqualification of a bidder who failed to meet the specific financial thresholds mandated for MSMEs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna heard the writ petition challenging the technical rejection of a bid for outsourcing canteen services at the BPCL Mumbai Refinery. The Petitioner, a partnership firm, sought to quash its disqualification, arguing that BPCL’s formula for evaluating experience credentials was arbitrary and contrary to the tender's corrigendum.

Key Takeaways

Author's Interpretation Paramount

Broadens the shield for tendering authorities, confirming that the author of a tender document is best positioned to interpret its terms unless patent perversity is shown.

Minimal Judicial Intervention

Reinforces that High Courts will not second-guess technical evaluations or substitute their own interpretations for those of expert committees in commercial contracts.

Corrigendum Scope Clarified

Establishes that clarifications issued via corrigenda to widen participation for ongoing contracts do not necessarily override the core eligibility criteria for completed contracts.

Annualized Value Thresholds

Validates the use of arithmetical averages (total value divided by tenure) to determine annualized capacity if the tender specifies such financial benchmarks.

Tender Interpretation by Court

The Bombay High Court emphasized that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is strictly limited. It observed that the authority inviting offers must have a free hand in setting and interpreting its own terms. The Bench noted that even if a different interpretation of a clause is possible, the Court must defer to the author’s view unless it is arbitrary or mala fide.

While analysing the legal standing on tender matters, the Bombay High Court expressed that "The abovementioned statements of law make it amply clear that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint. Further to that, the technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible; and even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the constitutional court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."

Ratio

In proceedings under Constitution of India, 1950, the Court must exercise restraint in tender matters. The authority that authors the tender document is the best judge of its requirements, and its interpretation shall be accepted if it is plausible. Technical evaluation of bids by a writ court is impermissible unless the process is proved to be arbitrary, mala fide, or intended to favour a specific party.

Background

BPCL (Respondent No. 1) floated an open tender for canteen services for three years. The Bid Qualification Criteria (BQC) required bidders to demonstrate experience through Purchase Orders (PO) with specific 'annualized basic values'. For Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) using three POs, the threshold was Rs. 11.72 crores per PO. The Petitioner submitted three credentials but was disqualified. BPCL calculated the annualized value of the Petitioner’s multi-year contracts by dividing the total value by the tenure, resulting in two of the three credentials falling below the threshold.

The Petitioner argued that Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. ( "(2016) 16 SCC 818": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 338) and other precedents mandated a different approach and that the Corrigendum No. 1 allowed for selecting the highest executed year's value instead of an average. The Respondents contended that the formula was consistently applied and that the successful L-1 bidder met the criteria through completed contracts without needing the Corrigendum’s relaxation for ongoing works. Relying on Agmatel India Private Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom and Ors., Galaxy Transport Agencies vs. New J. K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors, Silpi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India, and Montecarlo Ltd. vs. NTPC Ltd. ( "(2016) 15 SCC 272": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 268), the Bombay High Court found no ground for interference, noting that the Petitioner’s failure to meet the threshold was a matter of technical evaluation that the Court should not disturb.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.29700 OF 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:22146-DB
Case Title: M/s Vidya Caterers Versus Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. C. Naidu a/w Adv. Sean Wassoodew, Adv.Ashna Shah
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w Ms Shubhra Swami, Mr. R. V. Pawar, Mr. Amol Bavare, Mr. Krishna Sarkate i/by Pragnya Legal

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 6525