Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a set of petitions challenging the award of a government tender for food supply to tribal student hostels in Maharashtra. The division bench, comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice M.M. Sathaye, held that the state’s decision to apply the base-rate method for financial evaluation of bids was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The court observed that "there is nothing on record to show that there were any visible malafides or intention to favour a particular party, and therefore, the necessary threshold for judicial intervention is not crossed."

The petitioners, who had submitted the lowest financial bids, had sought directions to the Tribal Development Department to issue work orders in their favour. However, the court found that the base-rate method, which applied a permissible range of -20% to +10% of a predetermined estimate, was valid and aimed at ensuring quality food supply. It recorded that "the reasons offered by the Respondent/State for applying the base-rate method are rational", and no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction.

Also Read: Motor Accident Compensation | Disability Certified By Medical Board Cannot Be Reduced Without Ordering Re-Assessment : Supreme Court

The matter pertained to an e-tender issued by the Tribal Development Department, Thane, for providing food services to tribal students residing in hostels under the Integrated Tribal Development Project in Jawahar, District Palghar, for the years 2024-25 and 2025-26. The petitioners, Yashodhara Mahila Sahakari Audyogik Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Nashik, had participated in the bidding process and emerged as the lowest bidders (L-1) for multiple locations.

The petitioners contended that after the financial bids were opened on September 4, 2024, the department altered the evaluation criteria by introducing the base-rate method, which had not been disclosed in the tender document. They argued that this method was applied to favour specific bidders, leading to the rejection of their bids despite being the lowest.

The state, represented by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Thane, defended the application of the base-rate method. It submitted that the base rate of ₹6,032 per person per month had been determined before the bid opening and kept in a sealed envelope for transparency. The state argued that the tender process aimed to ensure quality food supply to tribal students, and selecting bids solely on the lowest price could compromise food standards or lead to non-performance.

The High Court examined whether the application of the base-rate method was arbitrary or unreasonable to the extent that it warranted judicial intervention. It relied on multiple precedents including Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) (2023 AIR SC 2717) and Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 489.

The court recorded: "The object behind the tender is to provide healthy, quality, and sufficient food to the tribal students living in government hostels. Keeping this objective in mind, the expert committee fixed the estimated cost based on market surveys and other relevant factors."

It further observed: "The base-rate method was derived on July 24, 2024, and kept in a sealed envelope before bids were opened. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this factual position. The application of the -20% to +10% range over this base rate ensures fairness and prevents bidders from quoting unrealistically low prices that may affect service quality."

Also Read: 'Blacklisting Without Fair Hearing is Civil Death': Bombay High Court Quashes BPCL's Action Against Contractor for 'Flagrant Violation of Natural Justice'

Addressing the petitioners' contention that the base-rate method was not mentioned in the tender document, the court stated: "Non-mention of the base-rate method in the tender document is not so fatal as to quash and set aside the impugned decision. Government procurement requires a degree of flexibility, and courts must allow ‘play in the joints’ in such matters."

The High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the state’s decision-making process. It held that judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases where government action is arbitrary, unreasonable, or tainted with malafides. Since no such elements were found in this case, interference was not justified.

The court concluded: "The petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." It also rejected the petitioners' request to continue the interim relief that had stayed the issuance of work orders to the selected bidders, stating that "considering the nature of work involved (supply of food), the prayer for continuation of ad-interim relief is rejected."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe and Abhijeet Khade, Advocates

For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (State): A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate / Special Counsel, Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader, G.R. Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleader

For Respondent No. 4 (Successful Bidders): Akshay P. Shinde (WP/14380/2024 and WP/14373/2024), Swapnil Ambure, Mr. Atit Soni & Ms. Nida Khan (WP/14371/2024 and WP/14378/2024)

Case Title: The Yashodhara Mahila Sahakari Audyogik Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Nashik v. The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Thane & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11421-DB
Case Number: WP-14371 of 2024 and connected matters
Bench: Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice M.M. Sathaye

[Read/Download order]