Tender & Contract (incl. Blacklisting)

Tender and contract litigation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh constitutes one of the most intricate areas of public law, involving disputes that arise from governmental procurement, administrative contracting, public works execution, service delivery agreements, and regulatory compliance frameworks. These matters usually concern departments, public sector undertakings, municipal bodies, development authorities, state corporations and statutory boards operating across Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The High Court’s jurisdiction is invoked to examine the legality, transparency and procedural integrity of tender processes, the award of contracts, decisions involving cancellation or re-tendering, actions relating to performance evaluation, imposition of penalties, invocation of bank guarantees and blacklisting orders. Because tendering involves statutory obligations, financial stakes and principles of fair competition, judicial review in this area requires meticulous analysis of the terms of the tender, administrative reasoning, underlying statutory mandates and constitutional standards applicable to public procurement.

A substantial volume of litigation concerns challenges to the award or rejection of tenders. Unsuccessful bidders frequently contend that the tendering authority has deviated from prescribed criteria, misapplied eligibility conditions or adopted a process inconsistent with the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. Petitioners argue that technical bids were evaluated inconsistently, financial bids were misinterpreted, prior experience was disregarded or deviations were permitted selectively. Authorities defend their decisions by citing autonomy in administrative decision-making, the discretion granted under the tender document, the comparative merits of bidders, the need to ensure timely completion of public projects and the procedural steps undertaken before awarding the contract. The High Court examines whether the tender process adhered to the terms specified in the tender document, whether evaluation criteria were applied uniformly, whether decisions are supported by rational considerations and whether administrative discretion was exercised within constitutional limits.

Another significant category involves disputes arising from cancellation of tenders or re-tendering decisions. Petitioners challenge the withdrawal of tender notices, cancellation of concluded processes or initiation of fresh tenders on grounds that such actions are arbitrary, unsupported by reasons or violate legitimate expectations. They contend that cancellations often occur after they have invested substantial resources in preparing bids. Authorities justify cancellations based on technical defects, budgetary constraints, newly discovered facts, public interest concerns or procedural irregularities detected during scrutiny. The High Court assesses whether cancellation was preceded by a reasonable decision-making process, whether reasons were recorded, whether the decision aligns with the tender conditions and whether the action was taken in good faith. Judicial scrutiny ensures that cancellations are not used as tools for favouritism or manipulation.

Contractual disputes arising after the award of tenders also constitute a major portion of litigation before the High Court. Contractors challenge termination of contracts, invocation of risk-and-cost clauses, imposition of liquidated damages, withholding of payments, rejection of bills, unilateral alterations of terms and adverse performance evaluations. Petitioners contend that authorities acted without following contractual procedures, ignored factual realities, relied on unfounded allegations or imposed disproportionate penalties. Government bodies defend their actions by citing contractual breaches, delays in execution, substandard work, financial loss or public interest considerations. The High Court examines the contractual framework governing the dispute, the correspondence exchanged between parties, compliance with notice requirements and the administrative reasoning leading to the impugned decision. Judicial intervention ensures that contractual remedies are exercised consistently with the legal principles governing public contracts.

Blacklisting matters form a particularly sensitive category of tender-related litigation because blacklisting effectively prevents an entity from participating in future public procurement processes. Petitioners challenge blacklisting orders on grounds of procedural impropriety, absence of notice, lack of opportunity to explain, disproportionate duration, reliance on extraneous material or imposition of sanctions not contemplated by the governing rules. Authorities justify blacklisting by referring to allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, abandonment of contracts, submission of forged documents, security concerns or breach of statutory obligations. The High Court evaluates whether the entity was provided a show cause notice, whether reasons were recorded, whether the penalty is proportionate and whether the decision accords with the statutory or contractual framework. Judicial review ensures that blacklisting remains a measure of last resort exercised in accordance with constitutional standards of fairness.

Disputes concerning invocation of bank guarantees also regularly reach the High Court. Petitioners challenge encashment of performance guarantees, earnest money deposits and security instruments, alleging that invocation is fraudulent, premature or contrary to the terms of the tender. Authorities defend invocation on the basis of contractual breaches, delays or failure to meet performance obligations. The High Court examines whether the bank guarantee is unconditional, whether the language permits invocation in the circumstances of the case and whether fraud or irretrievable injustice has been demonstrated. Judicial oversight in such matters reinforces the sanctity of bank guarantees while preventing unjustified encashments.

A further category involves interpretation of tender clauses, especially where ambiguity exists regarding eligibility criteria, technical requirements, qualification thresholds or compliance obligations. Petitioners argue that clauses were misinterpreted or applied incorrectly to exclude them from consideration. Authorities justify their interpretation based on administrative feasibility, the technical nature of work or long-standing practices. The High Court examines the language of the tender, the intent behind the clause and the context in which the authority applied its interpretation. Judicial intervention ensures clarity, consistency and lawful application of tender conditions.

Some disputes involve allegations of favouritism, cartelisation or manipulation during the tender process. Petitioners point to unusual patterns in bidding, selective acceptance of documents, last-minute changes to criteria or irregular scoring. Authorities deny allegations and argue that the process complied with established procedures. The High Court examines the factual matrix, tender documentation, evaluation records and administrative reasoning. Judicial review acts as a safeguard against practices that undermine transparency in public procurement.

Another set of disputes arises from challenges to qualification requirements, such as minimum financial turnover, prior experience, technical certifications, manpower criteria or equipment ownership. Petitioners contend that such criteria are excessively restrictive or tailored to favour particular entities. Authorities argue that these requirements are essential to secure competent execution of public works. The High Court evaluates whether eligibility conditions are proportionate to the nature of the contract, whether they were included in good faith and whether they comply with constitutional principles. Judicial scrutiny prevents exclusionary practices that distort competition.

Litigation also arises involving disputes between contractors and public authorities regarding statutory dues, escalation claims, price adjustments, extension of time requests and financial disputes arising from project execution. The High Court examines whether statutory obligations were fulfilled, whether contractual provisions permit adjustments and whether authorities acted reasonably in addressing delays or cost escalations. Judicial oversight ensures balanced resolution of disputes between public bodies and private contractors.

Across all categories—award of tenders, rejection of bids, cancellation and re-tendering decisions, contractual disputes, blacklisting actions, bank guarantee invocations, interpretation of tender conditions, allegations of irregularity, qualification challenges and financial disputes—the Punjab and Haryana High Court plays a crucial role in ensuring that public procurement across Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh is conducted fairly and in accordance with constitutional and statutory principles. Judicial review acts as a vital check on administrative discretion, fosters transparency in public contracting and ensures that contractual powers are exercised with objectivity, legality and procedural integrity.