Judicial review in tender matters is limited; unsuccessful bidders cannot later challenge tender conditions they participated under.

Judgment :

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 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 respondent-Corporation 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 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 a