Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Centpro Engineering Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Engineers India Ltd. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12056/2026 | CM APPL. 55947/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saurabh Upadhyay, Vipul Sharma, Deepika Sharma, Hardika
For the Respondents: Gauhar Mirza, Kaveesh Nair, Karshana Agarwal
In public tenders, a bidder cannot seek judicial relief for being unable to bid if the failure to meet mandatory qualification criteria, such as completing required pilot demonstrations, is due to the bidder's own inaction or lack of preparation.
Headnote:(A) Tender Process - Bidder Qualification Criteria - Failure to meet mandatory requirements - Where a tender explicitly requires demonstration reports for multiple sections (Evaporation and Incineration), a bidder's failure to complete one of the demonstrations due to its own inaction does not entitle it to a further extension of the bid due date. (Para 5, 6, 9)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Extension of Time - Public Interest - In public tenders, once reasonable extensions have been granted, the court will not interfere with the decision of the respondents to adhere to the deadline, especially when the bidder is responsible for its own failure to comply with the qualification criteria. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to an extension of the bid due date after failing to complete the mandatory pilot demonstration for the evaporation section.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayers:-
“1. Issue writ of Mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for revaluating the terms and conditions of the Tender No.JP/889-250-LZ-MR-4060/82 dated 17.06.2026 in question keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the scope of works sought to be executed and thereafter provide reasonable timelines to enable the petitioner and other bidders to bid for the works in question.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus and direct Respondent no.1 to link and upload the details of Tender No. JP/889-250-LZ-MR-4060/82 dated 17.06.2026 on the GEM portal.
3.Pass any other such order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to bid for the subject tender issued by the respondent no.1 on 17.06.2026 for the ‘Red Water Destruction Package’ for the TNT Plant at High Explosives Factory (HEF), Khadki, Pune, Maharashtra of respondent No.2. He states that initially the bid due date was fixed as 08.07.2026 at 02.00 PM with bid opening at 02.30 PM on the same day. Pursuant to the pre-bid meeting and queries asked by the bidders, the petitioners had on 08.07.2026 received the requisite civil work/soil data from respondent no.1, consequent to which, the bid date was extended by seven days, i.e. 15.07.2026. On 14.07.2026, the respondent no.2 supplied the red water samples to the petitioner which were required for pilot demonstration. The bid date was further extended till 03.08.2026. On 30.07.2026, the petitioner conducted the pilot demonstration for the incineration section in presence of the team deputed by respondent no.2, successfully. On 31.07.2026, the petitioner submitted the incineration pilot demonstration report to respondent no.2. On 03.08.2026, the respondent no.2 furnished its evaluation report on the incineration pilot demonstration at about 01.05 PM barely ninety minutes before the bid due time, i.e. 02.30 PM. Hence, the petitioner was unable to incorporate the evaluation report in its bid. Resultantly, the petitioner was disabled from participating in the tender.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent, despite requests made by the petitioner for extending the bid due date, was not acceded to, hence the petitioner has filed the petition.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that the petition is totally misconceived and untenable as the petitioner itself has to be blamed for not submitting the evaporation report on the same date when it has carried out the incineration pilot demonstration, as was done by the other bidders.
5. In this regard, he has drawn out attention to the note under Clause 3.1.2 at page no.44 of the paper book, which reads as under:-
“3. BIDDER QUALIFICATION CRITERIA (BQC) :
3.1.2 xxxx xxxx xxxx
Note: (i) Bids having demonstration report of only one section (i.e. either Evaporation section or Incineration section) will not be considered for evaluation.”
6. The above note clearly states that only one section (i.e. either evaporation section or incineration section) will not be considered for evaluation. Since the petitioner had provided the demonstration report with regard to incineration section and had not submitted the evaporation section report, which was also required to be submitted after carrying out the relevant exercise, which the other bidders had submitted, the petitioner could not submit its bid.
7. In effect, he has drawn our attention to the email of petitioner at page no.110 of the paperbook to submit that the petitioner was required to carry out the demonstration for red water evaporation system on the due date. Rather, the petitioner in the said email states that it has already submitted the incineration evalua
