The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is unavailable where eligibility under a tender turns on disputed facts, such as the existence of a rate contract enlistment, and declined to interfere in administrative tender decisions absent clear documentary support. This decision upholds prior precedent and reinforces strict standards for judicial intervention in government tenders, setting binding authority for subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/12068/2025 of T.S. ADMIXTURE PROJECT Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0230372025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Type of Law | Administrative/Tender Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to interfere with administrative refusal of tender participation based on disputed factual eligibility. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a writ petition cannot be allowed where the petitioner’s eligibility to participate in a tender is a disputed question of fact, particularly when there is no documentary evidence annexed to support the claim of eligibility. Administrative authorities have discretion in such matters, and absent clear violation or incontrovertible evidence, courts in writ jurisdiction will not interfere. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s bid was cancelled for not showing proof of enlistment under rate contract with the tender inviting authority, which was an eligibility condition. The petitioner claimed to be enlisted but did not provide any documentary proof with the writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering judicial review of tenders on factual disputes |
| Follows | Upholds existing precedent on non-interference in tender matters involving disputed facts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that judicial review in tender matters is limited where eligibility turns on disputed facts without clear documentary evidence.
- Lawyers must ensure that all factual claims are substantiated with reliable documentation when seeking writ relief concerning tender eligibility.
- The absence of annexed documents substantiating eligibility is fatal to claims for judicial intervention in government procurement.
- Reinforces the administrative discretion of tender inviting authorities in the scrutiny and rejection of bids.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the claim that the petitioner was entitled to participate in the tender.
- The tender inviting authority (WBSEDCL) submitted that the petitioner was ineligible due to non-enlistment under a rate contract—a specific eligibility criterion under Clause 1(ii)(a) or (b).
- The petitioner asserted eligibility but produced no documentary evidence annexed to the writ petition to support this claim.
- The Court found the issue to be a disputed question of fact, inappropriate for resolution in writ proceedings.
- As per settled law, where eligibility or entitlement depends on unresolved factual disputes, writ courts refrain from interfering unless violation is patently demonstrated by clear evidence.
- In absence of substantiating documents, the petitioner was not entitled to relief, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that the petitioner was an enlisted contractor eligible for participation.
- Sought relief against exclusion from the tender process.
Respondent (WBSEDCL)
- Stated that the petitioner did not qualify conditions in Clause 1(ii)(a) or (b) of the tender.
- Specifically argued that the petitioner was not enlisted under rate contract—a mandatory eligibility criterion.
Factual Background
T.S. Admixture Projects filed a writ petition after its bid for a government tender was cancelled. The authority, WBSEDCL, rejected the bid on the ground that the petitioner was not enlisted under the required rate contract, an express eligibility condition as per the tender notice. The petitioner contended eligibility as an enlisted contractor but failed to annex any documentary proof of such enlistment with the petition. This resulted in a factual dispute regarding eligibility.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment analyzed the administrative law principle that eligibility for a government tender is governed by the terms of the tender document. Where fulfillment of eligibility is fact-specific and subject to dispute, judicial review under Article 226 will not extend to resolving such factual disputes in the absence of clear, unimpeachable evidence. The judgment affirmed the discretionary authority of the tender inviting body in evaluating compliance with eligibility conditions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court adhered to established principles limiting interference in administrative tender matters where eligibility is disputed and unsupported by unambiguous documentation.