Examining the judicial review of administrative discretion in public procurement
📜 Examining Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in Public Procurement
1. Introduction
Public procurement involves the acquisition of goods, services, and works by government entities. It is governed by administrative rules to ensure transparency, fairness, competition, and value for public money.
Administrative agencies often have wide discretion in evaluating tenders, setting procurement criteria, and awarding contracts. However, this discretion is not absolute and is subject to judicial review to prevent:
Abuse of power
Unfair treatment of bidders
Corruption or favoritism
Procedural irregularities
Judicial review ensures that public procurement decisions are lawful, rational, and procedurally fair, while respecting the expertise and autonomy of procurement authorities.
2. Key Grounds for Judicial Review in Procurement
| Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Illegality | Acting beyond the powers conferred by law or regulations |
| Irrationality | Decisions so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make them |
| Procedural impropriety | Violating rules of fair process, such as failing to consider a valid bid |
| Bias or favoritism | Demonstrating preferential treatment or conflicts of interest |
| Proportionality | Measures must be appropriate and not excessive for the procurement goal |
3. ⚖️ Key Cases on Judicial Review in Public Procurement
Below are detailed explanations of more than four landmark cases that illustrate how courts review administrative discretion in procurement:
⚖️ 1. Ram and Company v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1988 Raj 1)
Facts:
The petitioner submitted a lower bid than the selected contractor but was not awarded the contract. The state awarded the contract to a higher bidder citing vague “public interest” grounds.
Issue:
Whether the rejection of the lowest bid without adequate justification was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (equality before the law).
Holding:
The Rajasthan High Court held that while the lowest bid does not always have to be accepted, there must be objective and rational reasons for rejecting it.
Significance:
The case reinforced the principle that discretion in procurement must be exercised transparently and with sound justification, not arbitrarily.
⚖️ 2. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
Facts:
The government awarded cellular licenses in a tender process. Tata Cellular challenged the award, alleging bias and procedural irregularities.
Issue:
Can courts interfere in tender evaluations and government contract awards?
Holding:
The Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of limited judicial review in contract matters. It held that the decision-making process, not the decision itself, can be reviewed for:
Illegality
Irrationality
Procedural impropriety
Significance:
This is a landmark case. It established that courts will not sit as appellate authorities over administrative procurement decisions but will intervene if the process is arbitrary, biased, or unlawful.
⚖️ 3. Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617
Facts:
Air India challenged the rejection of its bid in a tender process for ground-handling services.
Issue:
Did the rejection violate principles of transparency and fairness?
Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized that even in contractual matters, public bodies are bound by Article 14, and their actions must be non-arbitrary, transparent, and based on rational considerations.
Significance:
The case reaffirmed that public authorities must act fairly, even in commercial decisions like tendering, and that judicial review applies to protect constitutional values.
⚖️ 4. Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015)
Facts:
The EPA made a procurement-related regulatory decision under the Clean Air Act without fully considering costs.
Issue:
Can an agency exercise discretion in procurement or rulemaking without considering relevant factors?
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that failure to consider costs made the agency's decision unreasonable and arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Significance:
Although not a traditional procurement case, it highlights that administrative discretion is bounded by reasonableness and proper consideration of relevant factors, even in public projects involving procurement.
⚖️ 5. Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corp., (2007) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
Reliance challenged the award of a contract for a highway project, alleging deviation from tender conditions and lack of level playing field.
Issue:
Can public authorities modify or ignore tender terms to favor specific bidders?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that tender terms must be followed strictly. Deviation from pre-declared conditions without justification violates the principles of equality, non-arbitrariness, and fair competition.
Significance:
Reiterated that transparency and equal treatment of bidders are constitutional obligations under Article 14. Discretion cannot override these principles.
⚖️ 6. Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171
Facts:
A development authority rejected a bid for allotment of land on technical grounds, which the bidder challenged.
Issue:
Is the authority’s discretion in technical evaluations subject to judicial scrutiny?
Holding:
The Court held that technical evaluations are best left to expert bodies, but judicial review is available if the discretion is abused or exercised with mala fides.
Significance:
Clarified the scope of judicial restraint: courts defer to technical discretion unless there is illegality or arbitrariness.
4. ⚖️ Summary Table of Case Principles
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Ram and Co. v. Rajasthan | Rejection of lowest bid must be justified and not arbitrary |
| Tata Cellular v. Union of India | Limited judicial review of procurement focused on the process |
| Air India v. Cochin Int’l Airport | Public authorities must act transparently and fairly in tenders |
| Michigan v. EPA | Discretion must consider all relevant factors; decisions must be reasonable |
| Reliance Energy v. MSRDC | Deviation from tender terms violates equality and transparency principles |
| Meerut Dev. Authority v. AMS | Courts defer to technical experts unless decision is arbitrary or biased |
5. ✅ Guiding Principles from Case Law
Transparency: All bidders must have access to the same information and be treated equally.
Reasonableness: Decisions must be logical, based on evidence and relevant considerations.
Non-arbitrariness: No favoritism or hidden criteria should guide the award.
Due Process: Bidders should have a fair chance to respond to decisions affecting them.
Judicial Review Limits: Courts will not re-evaluate technical scores or business judgments unless illegality or gross unreasonableness is shown.
6. 🔚 Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative discretion in public procurement is essential to ensure legality, fairness, and accountability. While courts respect agency expertise and avoid interfering in commercial decisions, they intervene when discretion is abused, or procedural fairness is violated.
The jurisprudence balances two key concerns:
Autonomy of public procurement authorities to manage complex projects.
Protection of public interest and bidder rights through constitutional and administrative principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments