Mohammad Jahid vs State Of U.P Thru. Dist. Magistrate Faizabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "A) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned office order dated

14.10.2025 annexed as Annexure No.3 to this writ petition in the interest of justice. B) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue Letter of Auction Sale to the petitioner for 370 nos. of Eucalyptus Trees standing in Village Dulalpur and Village Manapur, Rudauli, District Ayodhya being the highest bidder in pursuance to the auction held on 12.03.2024 within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had participated in a tender proceedings which was floated and the petitioner was the highest bidder, however the letter of intent was not issued to the petitioner, hence the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 14.10.2025 seeking the prayer mentioned hereinabove. 2 WRIC No. 10840 of 2025

4. Mr. Prashant Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first, second and third round of auction proceedings the highest bid was of Rs.9,90,000/-,18,16,000/-,07,15,000/- respectively and thereafter in the 4th round of auction which was held on 12.03.2024, the petitioner was declared highest bidder for the value of Rs.7,30,000/- and that the petitioner has also deposited Rs.7,15,000/- and the difference of Rs.15,000/- was also subsequently deposited. He further submits that without cancelling the auction proceedings held on 12.03.2024, further auction proceeding has been initiated by the respondents which is arbitrary and illegal.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reason for not issuing the Letter of Auction was loss to the State exchequer. He further submits that the second bid was about Rs.18.00 Lakhs and the 3rd and 4th bid was hardly for around Rs.7.00 Lakhs and that is reason the respondents have initiated the further auction proceedings. He fairly submits that it will be open for the petitioner to join in the fresh auction proceedings, if he so desires. There is no arbitrariness and the reason for not issuing the letter of auction awarding the contract and it was only keeping in mind the loss of State exchequer.

6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties' counsel and perused the records along with the annexures.

7. Before going into merits of the matter, this Court would like to scrutinize the scope of judicial review the matter of Governmental contracts.

8. In the matter of Sterling Computers Ltd v. M & N Publications Ltd.; (1993) 1 SCC 445, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process.” …... 3 WRIC No. 10840 of 2025 the courts can certainly examine whether 'decision making process' was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

9. In the matter of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India; (2005) 1 SCC 679, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “43. …. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits government from arbitrarily choosing a contractor at its will and pleasure. It has to act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contracts. At the same time, no person can claim a fundamental right to carry in business with the government. All that he can claim is that in competing for the contract, he should not be unfairly treated and discriminated, to the detriment of public interest. ...”

10. In the matter of B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Limited v. Nair Coal Services Ltd.;(2006) 11 SCC 548, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “56. It may be true that a contract need not be given to the lowest tenderer but it is equally true that the employer is the best judge therefor; the same ordinarily being within its domain, court's interference in such matter should be minimal. The High Court's jurisdiction in such matters being limited in a case of this nature, the Court should normally exercise judicial restraint unless illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the employer is apparent on the face of the record.”

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd and another; 2016 (16) SCC 818 has held as follows: “13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of 4 WRIC No. 10840 of 2025 administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. ***

15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is fide or perversity the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents is not acceptable constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.”

12. In view thereof, as per the ratio laid down in the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is very limited.

13. Since in the instant petition, the fresh round of auction proceedings is already going on and it is open for the petitioner to join in the said proceedings, hence, we do not found any justification to interfere in this matter.

14. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merits in the instant petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 14, 2025 Arjun/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "A) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned office order dated

14.10.2025 annexed as Annexure No.3 to this writ petition in the interest of justice. B) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue Letter of Auction Sale to the petitioner for 370 nos. of Eucalyptus Trees standing in Village Dulalpur and Village Manapur, Rudauli, District Ayodhya being the highest bidder in pursuance to the auction held on 12.03.2024 within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had participated in a tender proceedings which was floated and the petitioner was the highest bidder, however the letter of intent was not issued to the petitioner, hence the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 14.10.2025 seeking the prayer mentioned hereinabove. 2 WRIC No. 10840 of 2025

4. Mr. Prashant Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first, second and third round of auction proceedings the highest bid was of Rs.9,90,000/-,18,16,000/-,07,15,000/- respectively and thereafter in the 4th round of auction which was held on 12.03.2024, the petitioner was declared highest bidder for the value of Rs.7,30,000/- and that the petitioner has also deposited Rs.7,15,000/- and the difference of Rs.15,000/- was also subsequently deposited. He further submits that without cancelling the auction proceedings held on 12.03.2024, further auction proceeding has been initiated by the respondents which is arbitrary and illegal.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reason for not issuing the Letter of Auction was loss to the State exchequer. He further submits that the second bid was about Rs.18.00 Lakhs and the 3rd and 4th bid was hardly for around Rs.7.00 Lakhs and that is reason the respondents have initiated the further auction proceedings. He fairly submits that it will be open for the petitioner to join in the fresh auction proceedings, if he so desires. There is no arbitrariness and the reason for not issuing the letter of auction awarding the contract and it was only keeping in mind the loss of State exchequer.

6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties' counsel and perused the records along with the annexures.

7. Before going into merits of the matter, this Court would like to scrutinize the scope of judicial review the matter of Governmental contracts.

8. In the matter of Sterling Computers Ltd v. M & N Publications Ltd.; (1993) 1 SCC 445, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process.” …... 3 WRIC No. 10840 of 2025 the courts can certainly examine whether 'decision making process' was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

9. In the matter of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India; (2005) 1 SCC 679, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “43. …. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits government from arbitrarily choosing a contractor at its will and pleasure. It has to act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contracts. At the same time, no person can claim a fundamental right to carry in business with the government. All that he can claim is that in competing for the contract, he should not be unfairly treated and discriminated, to the detriment of public interest. ...”

10. In the matter of B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Limited v. Nair Coal Services Ltd.;(2006) 11 SCC 548, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “56. It may be true that a contract need not be given to the lowest tenderer but it is equally true that the employer is the best judge therefor; the same ordinarily being within its domain, court's interference in such matter should be minimal. The High Court's jurisdiction in such matters being limited in a case of this nature, the Court should normally exercise judicial restraint unless illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the employer is apparent on the face of the record.”

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd and another; 2016 (16) SCC 818 has held as follows: “13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of 4 WRIC No. 10840 of 2025 administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. ***

15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is fide or perversity the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents is not acceptable constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.”

12. In view thereof, as per the ratio laid down in the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is very limited.

13. Since in the instant petition, the fresh round of auction proceedings is already going on and it is open for the petitioner to join in the said proceedings, hence, we do not found any justification to interfere in this matter.

14. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merits in the instant petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 14, 2025 Arjun/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench