The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that once a tender rejection is reversed due to misinterpretation and the lowest bidder’s qualification is reaffirmed in open competition as per the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), pending review petitions do not create a legal bar to awarding the contract, especially where essential services are at stake. This decision upholds prior precedent on the finality and integrity of the tender process and is binding authority within the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16227/2025 of M/S LION SERVICES Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010632872025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the principle that finality in tender decisions per NIT prevails unless specific legal grounds proven |
| Type of Law | Public Contract, Administrative Law, Tender Law |
| Questions of Law | Does the filing of a review petition prevent award of a contract after prior disqualification is set aside and NIT compliance is established? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that once the case of both the petitioner and the competing bidder has been duly considered in accordance with the NIT—and after the rejection of the lowest bid on technical grounds is voided due to misinterpretation—a pending review petition alone does not impede the tender award. Essential services must not be disrupted for unwarranted litigation, and finalized decisions in the presence of all affected parties hold unless and until valid grounds are proven. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | CWP No. 3469 of 2025 (Himachal Pradesh High Court) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court grounded its decision in the principles from the earlier interim and final orders, emphasizing fair consideration under the NIT and the consequences of misinterpretation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged the award of a cooked diet supply contract for Zonal Hospital Mandi, arguing the private respondent’s earlier disqualification due to a penalty and alleged “conviction.” The respondent’s technical rejection was reversed following an interim order because a penalty is not a criminal conviction, and the matter was reconsidered per the NIT, leading to the respondent’s lowest bid being reconsidered and accepted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, when dealing with similar tender law and public contract questions |
| Follows | CWP No. 3469 of 2025 (Himachal Pradesh High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The mere filing of a review petition does not create a bar to contract award if previous litigation has been finally disposed of in the presence of all affected parties.
- A technical penalty imposed does not amount to “conviction” for purposes of disqualification from tender processes.
- Essential public services should not be delayed or held hostage due to continuing or frivolous litigation, once compliance with the NIT and due consideration are established.
- This judgment affirms the jurisprudence that public procurement finality and integrity cannot be undermined by perpetual litigation absent specific, proved legal grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reiterated that only a criminal court can “convict” a person and a penalty does not equate to a disqualification based on conviction, following the rationale of the interim order in the related CWP No. 3469 of 2025.
- It noted that after the coordinate bench’s directions, the official respondent reconsidered the tender process and properly applied the NIT to both competing bidders.
- The main legal question—that filing a review petition should not prevent contract award where the tender process has been legally concluded—was answered in the negative, upholding the importance of continuity for essential services.
- The earlier final order, in which the current petitioner participated as respondent, remained binding, and no new grounds would arise merely due to a pending review absent a stay or interim relief.
- The decision stresses non-interference in tender process finality for public services barring demonstrable illegality.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that a review petition had been filed in the prior writ proceedings and, pending its outcome, the contract should not be awarded to the private respondent.
Respondent (State and Private Respondent)
- Emphasized that after the reconsideration as per court orders, the private respondent was the L-1 bidder in full compliance with the NIT.
- Stated that the alleged conviction was in fact only a penalty, not warranting disqualification.
- Highlighted the need to avoid holding up essential services due to ongoing litigation.
Factual Background
The controversy arose from the awarding of a cooked diet supply contract for the Zonal Hospital Mandi, initiated pursuant to a January 2025 NIT. The petitioner was initially ranked L-1 after the private respondent (Bharat Cuisine Services Chefs and Caterers) was technically disqualified on the basis of a ₹15,000/- penalty, erroneously equated to “conviction.” The private respondent obtained interim relief in CWP No. 3469 of 2025, where the court held that only a criminal court can convict, rendering the earlier technical rejection a misinterpretation. The tender process was reconsidered in compliance with the NIT, and the private respondent (after rectification) became the L-1 bidder again. The petitioner challenged the award, citing a pending review petition in the prior writ.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted the relevant tender (NIT) provisions regarding bidder qualification and disqualification.
- It clarified the distinction between a “penalty” imposed administratively and a “conviction” by a criminal court, holding that only the latter triggers statutory disqualification under the NIT.
- No expansive or alternative interpretations were applied beyond the clear text of the NIT and the established legal meaning of “conviction.”
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Both Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj concurred in the reasons and dismissal of the writ petition.
Procedural Innovations
- The court emphasized that filing of subsequent review petitions, without an express stay or interim relief, does not maintain the status quo or restrain contract award in finalized tender processes.
- No new procedural rules or guidelines issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed existing law on finality of tender decisions, proper application of the NIT, and the distinction between penalties and criminal convictions.