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

The High Court declines interference, saying allegations of fraud and misrepresentation require detailed factual examination.
HC Dismisses Writ in Tender Fraud Allegations, Cites Disputed Facts Not Fit for Article 226

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.
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.
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
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157My Recent Articles
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
- ITAT Restores Charitable Trust's 12AB Registration Application After CIT(E) Rejects It for Non-Filing of DocumentsPremium
- Bombay High Court Quashes Time-Barred Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16Premium
- ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition Accepting Deceased Father’s Lifetime Cash SavingsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








