# Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications Pvt.Ltd.Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri Aditya Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 980
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-06
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 9597 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avani-paridhi-energy-and-communications-pvt-ltd-thru-authorized-signatory-shri-54837
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma, Sharad Kumar
Shukla

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the writ petitioner, having participated
in the entire tender process and being an
unsuccessful
bidder,
could
challenge
the
technical evaluation dated 15.09.2025 and the
entire tender process under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and whether the writ court
should interfere in commercial matters relating
to tenders issued by the government.

HEADNOTE
Indian Constitution - Article 226 - Tender
process
-
Technical
evaluation
dated
15.09.2025 - Challenge to entire tender
process
-
Preliminary
objection
as
to
maintainability - Petitioner participated in the
entire tender process - Bar to challenge tender
process
after
participation
-
Plea
of
participation "under protest" - Letter dated
25.08.2025 relied upon - Receipt of protest
letter categorically denied - No proof of service
produced - Contention of participation after
protest remains unsubstantiated - Writ court
should be slow to interfere in commercial
matters - Evaluation of tenders and award of
contracts essentially commercial functions -
Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a
distance - Judicial review to be exercised with
great caution - Power of judicial review not to
be invoked to protect private interest at the cost
of public interest - Unsuccessful bidder barred
from challenging tender conditions at the
closing stage - No gross or palpable illegality
pointed out .LD:

Petitioner participated in the entire tender
process and was an unsuccessful bidder.
Contention that the petitioner participated after
protesting is unsubstantiated, as receipt of the
alleged protest letter dated 25.08.2025 was
categorically denied and no proof of service was
placed on record. Writ court should ordinarily
refrain from interfering in matters relating to
tender
or
contract.
A
person
who
has
participated in the tender process and is
unsuccessful cannot be allowed to challenge the
tender conditions at the closing stage. No
overwhelming
public
interest
requiring
interference has been shown.Writ petition is
dismissed. (Paras 5-12)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai
Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST),
Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023, decided on
19.05.2023;
Nandaur Haldwani Ujjwal Dharam Kanta Owners
Society v. Uttarakhand Forest Development
Corporation, MANU/UC/0501/2023;
Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices,
AIR 2024 SC (Supp) 1354;
Moksh Innovations Inc. v. State of U.P., 2021
SCC OnLine All 206

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

## Text

980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
position that emerges, is that the land
bearing Gata No.14 is recorded as Banjar in
the revenue records and the construction of
pond under the 'Amrit Sarovar Yojana' was
being made over the said plot and not over
the plot over which the petitioners claim to
be recorded as tenure holders.

17. The objective of the 'Mission
Amrit Sarovar' scheme, as reflected from
the Government Order and the guidelines
which have been referred, is indicative of
the fact that the development of 'Amrit
Sarovars' is envisaged for augmenting
water resources and improving water
ecology with a view to create sustainable
and long term productive assets. This Court
is mindful of the basic legal principle that
while individual rights and interests would
enjoy constitutional protection, they may
be subordinated in appropriate cases to the
exigencies of public interest or public
necessity. While Courts would scrutinize
administrative actions that impinge on
individual rights, such rights may be
regulated or restricted where there exists a
demonstrable
and
overriding
public
interest. The scheme being for a larger
public purpose any individual interest, if in
conflict, would have to yield to the
community interest. The principle is
encapsulated in the maxim necessitas
publica major est quam privata public
interest is greater to private interest.

18. This Court may also take notice
of the well settled principle that entries in
the revenue record carry a presumption of
correctness unless rebutted by cogent
evidence. The petitioners, in the present
case, have failed to bring on record any
material to establish that the land over
which the pond is being constructed is
recorded in their name or that it forms part
of
their
holding.
Mere
filing
of
representations,
unsupported
by
documentary
proof
showing
title
or
possession, cannot dislodge the inference
which is to be otherwise drawn on the basis
of entries in the revenue records indicating
the land as Banjar.

19. The construction of pond,
regarding which a restraint is sought being
a
welfare-oriented
and
environmentprotective initiative undertaken in the larger
public
interest,
any
interference
in
implementation of the same may be
warranted only when there is clear
violation of individual rights or statutory
provisions. No such violation has been
demonstrated in the present case.

20. In absence of any demonstrable
infringement of petitioners recorded
rights or possession, no ground for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution is made out.

21. The writ petition therefore is
bereft of merits and it is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 980
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR , J.

Writ - C No. 9597 of 2025

Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications
Pvt.Ltd.Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri
Aditya Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner:
10 All. Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri
 Aditya Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
981
Pranav Agarwal, Anumita Chandra, Km.
Vasundhara Mathur

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma, Sharad Kumar
Shukla

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the writ petitioner, having participated
in the entire tender process and being an
unsuccessful
bidder,
could
challenge
the
technical evaluation dated 15.09.2025 and the
entire tender process under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and whether the writ court
should interfere in commercial matters relating
to tenders issued by the government.

HEADNOTE
Indian Constitution - Article 226 - Tender
process
-
Technical
evaluation
dated
15.09.2025 - Challenge to entire tender
process
-
Preliminary
objection
as
to
maintainability - Petitioner participated in the
entire tender process - Bar to challenge tender
process
after
participation
-
Plea
of
participation "under protest" - Letter dated
25.08.2025 relied upon - Receipt of protest
letter categorically denied - No proof of service
produced - Contention of participation after
protest remains unsubstantiated - Writ court
should be slow to interfere in commercial
matters - Evaluation of tenders and award of
contracts essentially commercial functions -
Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a
distance - Judicial review to be exercised with
great caution - Power of judicial review not to
be invoked to protect private interest at the cost
of public interest - Unsuccessful bidder barred
from challenging tender conditions at the
closing stage - No gross or palpable illegality
pointed out .LD:

Petitioner participated in the entire tender
process and was an unsuccessful bidder.
Contention that the petitioner participated after
protesting is unsubstantiated, as receipt of the
alleged protest letter dated 25.08.2025 was
categorically denied and no proof of service was
placed on record. Writ court should ordinarily
refrain from interfering in matters relating to
tender
or
contract.
A
person
who
has
participated in the tender process and is
unsuccessful cannot be allowed to challenge the
tender conditions at the closing stage. No
overwhelming
public
interest
requiring
interference has been shown.Writ petition is
dismissed. (Paras 5-12)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai
Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST),
Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023, decided on
19.05.2023;
Nandaur Haldwani Ujjwal Dharam Kanta Owners
Society v. Uttarakhand Forest Development
Corporation, MANU/UC/0501/2023;
Travancore Devaswom Board v. Ayyappa Spices,
AIR 2024 SC (Supp) 1354;
Moksh Innovations Inc. v. State of U.P., 2021
SCC OnLine All 206

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

30. List of Keywords
Tender process - Technical evaluation -
Participation in tender - Unsuccessful bidder -
Maintainability - Judicial review - Commercial
matters - Protest under tender - Proof of
service - Public interest - Estoppel - Article
226.

31. CASE ARISING FROM
CTechnical evaluation dated 15.09.2025 and
challenge to tender process.

32. Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Pranav Agarwal; Anumita
Chandra; Km. Vasundhara Mathur
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Ashok Kumar
Verma; Sharad Kumar Shukla

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the technical evaluation dated September
15, 2025 and the entire tender process on
the ground that the said tender process is
not in terms of the mandate of the
Government Order dated 19.05.2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents has raised a
preliminary ground of maintainability of
the writ petition. He submits that the
petitioner has participated in the entire
tender process and is accordingly barred
from challenging the same by way of a writ
petition. To buttress his argument, he relies
upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in
Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan
Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking (Best) and others (Civil
Appeal No.3897 of 2023 arising out of
SLP(C) No.15708 of 2022, decided on May
19, 2023).

4. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner relies on paragraph
23 of a judgment of the High Court of
Uttarakhand
in
Nandaur
Haldwani
Ujjwal Dharam Kanta Owners Society v.
Uttarakhand
Forest
Development
Corporation and others reported in
MANU/UC/0501/2023 to submit that if the
petitioner has protested and thereafter
participated, he is not estopped from filing
a writ petition. The said paragraph of the
judgment is delineated below :-

 "23. This Court is not convinced
with the arguments of the learned senior
counsel for the respondents-Corporation,
since, the tender which was submitted by
the petitioner was effectively "under
protest". The petitioner specifically pleaded
in para 9 of the petition, that even before
participating in the tender, the petitioner
had raised the objections by representation
dated 19.07.2023. Pertinently, in response
to the said averment, the respondent has not
disputed the fact of submission of this
representation, and has merely stated that
the same is a matter of record. Whether any
decision
was
taken
on
the
said
representation, or not, the respondents are
silent. It appears to us, that the respondentCorporation deliberately avoided to deal
with the petitioner's objections, which were
submitted
by
the
petitioner
before
participating in the tender process. Once
the objection had been raised by any of the
bidder before participating in the tender,
the respondents who floated tender cannot
be heard to say that the bidder is estopped
from challenging the tender conditions,
when there was no response/decision taken
on the objection."

5. We have examined the letter
dated 25.08.2025 supposedly written by the
petitioner in protest. Upon a perusal of the
letter, it appears that the petitioner had
raised some protest, however, receipt of
such letter has been categorically denied by
the counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents. The petitioner has not been
able to indicate or provide any proof of
evidence of service of the said letter under
these circumstances, the contention of the
petitioner that they had participated in the
tender process after protesting remains
unsubstantiated
and
cannot
be
countenanced by us.

6. In light of the same, the
judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in
Nandaur Haldwani Ujjwal Dharam
Kanta Owners Society (supra) does not
come to the petitioner's aide.

7. Furthermore, we are of the view
that the Writ Court should be slow to
interfere in commercial matters especially
in relation to tenders issued by the
10 All. Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri
 Aditya Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
983
government. The Supreme Court in Tata
Motors Limited (supra) has categorically
held as follows :-

 "52. Ordinarily, a writ court
should refrain itself from imposing its
decision over the decision of the employer
as to whether or not to accept the bid of a
tenderer unless something very gross or
palpable
is
pointed
out.
The
court
ordinarily should not interfere in matters
relating to tender or contract. To set at
naught the entire tender process at the stage
when the contract is well underway, would
not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh
tender process at this stage may consume
lot of time and also loss to the public
exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees.
The financial burden/implications on the
public exchequer that the State may have to
meet with if the Court directs issue of a
fresh tender notice, should be one of the
guiding factors that the Court should keep
in mind. This is evident from a three-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Association
of Registration Plates v. Union of India and
Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.

 53. The law relating to award of
contract by the State and public sector
corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd.
v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.,
reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was
held that the award of a contract, whether
by a private party or by a State, is
essentially a commercial transaction. It can
choose its own method to arrive at a
decision and it is free to grant any
relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the
tender conditions permit such a relaxation.
It was further held that the State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies
have the public duty to be fair to all
concerned. Even when some defect is
found in the decision-making process, the
court must exercise its discretionary powers
under Article 226 with great caution and
should exercise it only in furtherance of
public interest and not merely on the
making out of a legal point. The court
should always keep the larger public
interest in mind in order to decide whether
its intervention is called for or not. Only
when it comes to a conclusion that
overwhelming
public interest
requires
interference, the court should interfere.

 54. As observed by this Court in
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and
Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that
while invoking power of judicial review in
matters as to tenders or award of contracts,
certain special features should be borne in
mind that evaluations of tenders and
awarding of contracts are essentially
commercial functions and principles of
equity and natural justice stay at a distance
in such matters. If the decision relating to
award of contract is bona fide and is in
public interest, courts will not interfere by
exercising powers of judicial review even if
a
procedural
aberration
or error in
assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is
made out. Power of judicial review will not
be invoked to protect private interest at the
cost of public interest, or to decide
contractual disputes."

8. Furthermore, the Supreme Court
in Travancore Devaswom Board v.
Ayyappa Spices reported in AIR 2024 SC
(Supp) 1354 discussed in detail the
principles that would apply in relation to
judicial review in tender matters. The
relevant paragraph is delineated below :-

 "19. The principle that in matters
of public tenders for procurement, judicial
review is restrained is well established 4. In
cases
where
a
party
invoking
writ
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction has been a participant in the
tender process, courts should be slow and
cautious in exercising the power of judicial
review. In a recent decision, UFLEX Ltd.
v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Civil
Appeal Nos. 4862-63 of 2021 : (AIR 2021
SC (Supp) 1510), this Court has held that
constitutional
courts
should
exercise
caution while interfering in contractual and
tender matters, disguised as public interest
litigations. The following observations are
important for the purpose of this case :

 "1. The enlarged role of the
Government in economic activity and its
corresponding ability to give economic
"largesse" was the bedrock of creating what
is
commonly
called
the
"tender
jurisdiction". The objective was to have
greater transparency and the consequent
right of an aggrieved party to invoke the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, beyond the
issue of strict enforcement of contractual
rights under the civil jurisdiction. However,
the ground reality today is that almost no
tender remains unchallenged. Unsuccessful
parties or parties not even participating in
the tender seek to invoke the jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The public interest litigation
(PIL) jurisdiction is also invoked towards
the same objective, an aspect normally
deterred by the Court because this causes
proxy litigation in purely contractual
matters.

 2. The judicial review of such
contractual matters has its own limitations.
It is in this context of judicial review of
administrative actions that this Court has
opined that it is intended to prevent
arbitrariness,
irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides. The
purpose is to check whether the choice of
decision is made lawfully and not to check
whether the choice of decision is sound. In
evaluating tenders and awarding contracts,
the parties are to be governed by principles
of commercial prudence. To that extent,
principles of equity and natural justice have
to stay at a distance.

 3. We cannot lose sight of the fact
that a tenderer or contractor with a
grievance can always seek damages in a
civil
court
and
thus,
"attempts
by
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary
grievances, wounded pride and business
rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills
of some technical/procedural violation or
some prejudice to self, and persuade courts
to interfere by exercising power of judicial
review, should be resisted.""

9. The Division Bench of this High
Court after relying on several Supreme
Court's judgments in Moksh Innovations
Inc. v. State of U.P. and others reported
in 2021 SCC OnLine All 206 also held as
follows :-

 "10. The first and foremost
question which falls for our consideration
is as to what is the scope of judicial
scrutiny in relation to a challenge made by
an unsuccessful bidder, to a tender
condition. There is no doubt that in regard
to allotment of contract the action of the
Government or its instrumentality are
subject to judicial review, however, it is
also equally well settled that a tender
submitted in response to a NIT is only an
offer which the Government or its
instrumentality are under no obligation to
accept. It is only that the participating
tenderer should be dealt with in a fair and
non-discriminatory manner in the matter of
evaluation of tenders. Ordinarily scope of
judicial scrutiny of a tender matter implies
10 All. U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Vs. Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.
 Of Revenue Thru. Secy.& Ors.
985
that terms of tender are not open to
judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the
same have been tailor-made to benefit a
particular party or class of tenderers. It is
also equally settled by a long line decisions
by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a party
having participated in the tender knowing
that it was unsuccessful ordinarily, cannot
be permitted to challenge the conditions of
tender, as such after thought action on the
part
of
the
unsuccessful
bidder
is
impermissible to be entertained by the
Courts. It is trite law that a tenderer having
accepted
the
tender
conditions
and
submitted the tender does not have locus to
challenge the conditions of tender for the
reason that in such a situation any party
aggrieved by the conditions of tender ought
to have challenged the NIT before
submitting its tender pursuant to such
notice."

10. The principles that emerge
from a reading of the above judgments is
crystal clear that the Writ Court should
ordinarily refrain itself from imposing its
decision over the decision of the employer
as to whether or not to accept the bid of a
tenderer unless something very gross or
palpable is pointed out. Furthermore, a
person who has participated in the tender
process is barred from challenging the said
tender conditions at the closing stages
when it is clear that the person is
unsuccessful. Any such challenge to the
tender conditions is required to be made by
the person at the very first instance and an
unsuccessful tenderer cannot raise a ground
that the tender conditions were in any
manner unlawful so as to reverse the
decision at the eleventh hour.

11.
In
view
of
the
above
discussions, we are of the view that since
the petitioner had participated in the tender
process and was an unsuccessful bidder, he
cannot be allowed to challenge the same,
subsequently.

12. In light of the same, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 985
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ - C No. 16125 of 2025

U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of
Revenue Thru. Secy.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Desh Deepak Chopra, Shailesh Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.,
D.K.Pathak,
Kushagra
Dikshit,
Manish Mishra

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Assessing Officer could deny
refund of tax deducted at source to the
petitioner merely on the ground that the TDS
amount was not reflected in Form 26AS, despite
the petitioner furnishing TDS certificates in Form
16A, and whether a mandamus could be issued
for grant of credit and refund of such TDS in
accordance with law.

HEADNOTE
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 80P, 154,
226(3) - Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of certiorari and mandamus - Cooperative
Society exempt under Section 80P - Notice
dated 05.12.2017 issued under Section 226(3)
directing withdrawal of Rs.3.50 crore from bank
account of petitioner - Prayer for quashing