SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ., Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
M/s. C 4 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nashik Division & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2024, Interim Application No. 11739 of 2024
Decided On : 21-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, through V.C., a/w Mr. Vishal Tambat, Ms. Chaitali Bhogle, Ms. Rochelle Fernandes & Mr. Rishabh Tiwari, Advocates, Ms. Medha Jondhale a/w Mr. Anand Jondhale, Ms. Rajandini Jondhale & Mr. Harshvardhan Shinde, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate, Ms. Medha Jondhale a/w Mr. Anand Jondhale, Ms. Rajandini Jondhale & Mr. Harshvardhan Shinde, Advocates, Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader & Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP

Judicial review of tender decisions is limited; compliance with stipulated conditions is mandatory, and non-compliance justifies rejection.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging the rejection of a bid for government contract - The rejection was based on non-submission of a mandatory Geo-tagging certificate - Court emphasized that the submission of tenders is not a right, and the authorities must adhere to their defined criteria - The petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide intent in the rejection process. (Paras 3, 5, 10, and 11)

(B) Judicial review in tender matters - Established that courts should exercise caution, and only interfere in cases of illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides - Non-compliance with tender conditions, such as the requisite Geo-tagging certificate, justifies rejection. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered company, challenged the rejection of its bid on grounds of not submitting a required Geo-tagging certificate, which it claimed was not possible due to the Divisional Engineer’s unavailability for signing.

Findings of Court:
The necessity for compliance with tender conditions was confirmed, and the non-responsiveness of the petitioner's bid was upheld as valid.

Issues: Whether the petitioner had a right to the acceptance of its bid and whether the rejection was arbitrary or unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority ensuring tender compliance is best placed to assess its requirements; non-compliance justified rejection.

Result: Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2024 is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's company background and bid challenge. (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedural history of the writ petition. (Para 3 , 6)
3. judicial review scope and bid evaluation constraints. (Para 4 , 10)
4. arguments regarding bid rejection and compliance issues. (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's dismissal of writ petition. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ.

Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2024 has been filed by M/s. C 4 Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (in short, the petitioner-Company) which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged in executing the government infrastructure projects.

2. The petitioner-Company seeks to challenge the bid opening summary dated 5th July 2024. The grievance of the petitioner- Company is that the bid submitted by it was rejected on technical ground and M/s. R. K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd. has been illegally declared successful bidder. A consequential prayer made by the petitioner-Company is for a direction to the tendering Authority to accept its bid for e-Tender Notice No.10/2023-24 published on 6th February 2024 on the official website portal of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nashik Division (in short, MSRTC).

3. On 23rd July 2024, the following order was passed in this writ petition :-

“1. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner, let the Principal Secretary (I.T.) be impleaded and as party-respondent No.6.

2. Necessary amendment shall be incorporated by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.

3. Re-verification is dispensed with.

4. Issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and newly added respondent no.6, returnable on 6th August 2024.

5. Mr. Bhutekar, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and waives service of notice, whereas Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.5-State and waives service of notice.

6. The petitioner states that the subject tender appears to have been declared non-responsive purportedly for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted the Geo-tapping certificate signed by the Divisional Engineer. The submission of the petitioner is that despite making several requests, the Divisional Engineer did not sign Geo-tapping certificate which prevented the petitioner from submitting the same. As a result of which, without there being any fault on its part, the petitioner’s bid has been declared as non-responsive.

7. We have been informed that on 5th July 2024 a technical bid was opened wherein the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected and simultaneously the financial bid was also opened.

8. To ascertain the financial bid offered by the petitioner, we direct that the financial bid submitted by the petitioner shall also be opened, and the rates quoted by the petitioner shall be brought on record of this petition by way of an affidavit to be filed by the respondent No.1. We have been informed that the entire tender process has been conducted through E-mode on the portal www.mahatender.com managed by the National Informatics Center (NIC).

9. Accordingly, for compliance of this order, the NIC or any other concerned authority shall extend full cooperation to the respondents. The technical bid of the petitioner shall be opened within ten days from today.

10. Stand over to 6th August 2024. To be placed High on Board.

11. The respondent-Corporation shall file their affidavit-in-reply disclosing the rate quoted by the petitioner by the next date.”

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, M/s. R. K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18014 of 2024. The Special Leave to Appeal came to be allowed by an order dated 25th August 2025 with a direction to the High Court to take up the application for interim order or to decide the main matter itself after hearing the parties. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was brought to the notice of the Court by the Registry on 19th September 2025 and this writ petition ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top