Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. KARNIK, SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10537 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 13976 of 2024, Interim Application (St) No. 35929 of 2025, Review Petition No. 130 of 2025
Decided On : 07-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to cidco's security clearance demand post-l1 bid. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. timeline of tenders, bids, litigation, and clearance denials. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. article 77 mandates inter-departmental concurrence for clearances. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. tender clauses exempt prior project executors from clearance. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. national security claims require judicial scrutiny of materials. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. security clearance denial justified by policy and intelligence. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 7. naina projects demand strict security for strategic infrastructure. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. clause 3(t) mandates clearance; itb clause 43 inapplicable. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. lead jv partner has locus to challenge tender actions. (Para 55) |
| 10. post-bid clearance required despite l1 status. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 11. judicial restraint in national security and policy matters. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 12. mha guidelines govern dynamic security clearance decisions. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 13. executive expertise prevails in threat assessments. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 14. fresh clearance needed per changing geopolitical factors. (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84) |
| 15. jv changes post-bid not permitted under clause 3(o). (Para 85 , 86 , 87) |
| 16. petition and review dismissed upholding clearance denial. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94) |
JUDGMENT :
M.S. KARNIK, J.
(A) THE CHALLENGE
1. Since common issues are involved and as the issues are interconnected, the Writ Petition and Review Petition are heard together. For ease of reference we refer to the facts as set out in the Writ Petition.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner - Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the lead partner of M/s. Thakur- EVRASCON JV inter alia challenging the action of respondent No.2-City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (“CIDCO”, for short) in seeking security clearance from the respondent No.6-Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs (“Union of India”, for short). The security clearance is sought after M/s. Thakur- EVRASCON JV has been declared as the lowest bidder in respect of 2 (two) tenders, which is alleged to be contrary to the Notice Inviting Bids (“NIB”, for short) dated 23rd July 2024. The petitioner - Thakur Infraprojects also seeks to set aside the letters dated 16th June 2025 and 2nd July 2025 issued by CIDCO which seek documents from the petitioner for obtaining security clearance pursuant to the NIB.
3. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, CIDCO addressed a letter dated 10th November 2025 informing the petitioner that the Competent Authority of the Government of India had denied security clearance to respondent No.3 (“EVRASCON”, for short). In view thereof, the petitioner amended the Writ Petition by adding respondent No.5 (Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra) and Union of India as parties thereto. The petitioner also sought further reliefs in the nature of restraining CIDCO from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner on the ground of denial of the security clearance in respect of EVRASCON, to call upon the State of Maharashtra and Union of India to disclose the reasons and grounds for denial of security clearance, and to call for all the records pertaining to the denial of the security clearance to EVRASCON and after examining the legality of the same to quash and set aside the said denial of the security clearance.
4. The following tenders form the subject matter of the present Writ Petition :-
(a) Notice inviting bids for Integrated Infrastructure Development of 20M and above wide Roads, Construction of Various Major and Minor Structures (viz. Flyover, Minor Bridges, VUPS, PUPs etc.) and Allied Electrical Works (Street Light) in TPS 10 a
AI
Courts defer to executive in denying security clearance for foreign bidders in strategic projects on national security grounds, limiting review to arbitrariness; prior clearances do not entitle futur....
The court affirmed that public authorities must act reasonably and fairly, finding that the failure to seek required security clearance in contractual bids constituted arbitrariness, impacting public....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the terms of the RFP and the interpretation given by the author of the document, while also considering the public in....
The Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities
The denial of security clearance was justified under Clause 2.1.12(a) of the Request for Proposal, and the absence of a specific list of eligible or ineligible countries did not exempt the appellants....
Tender - Tender conditions are required to be read as provided in the tender document and if there are two views or construction possible than the view of the authority interpreting the tender docume....
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
