Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 23037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.S. Sanjay Gowda, L.ODEDRA, JJ
North Gujarat Sports and Scientific – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11943 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NL Ramnani, A. N. Ramnani
For the Respondents:
A party cannot challenge tender qualification criteria after their bid is rejected if they submitted the bid without previously challenging the corrigendum or clarification that established those specific criteria.
Headnote:(A) Tender Process - Turnover Criteria - Restoration of original criteria via corrigendum - A petitioner who submits a bid without challenging a corrigendum that restores original qualification criteria cannot seek relief after the bid is rejected on the basis of those criteria. (Para 6, 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to have their bid considered despite failing to challenge the second corrigendum that restored the original turnover criteria prior to submitting the bid.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the fluctuation of turnover criteria in the tender process and the petitioner's subsequent bid rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. the court's observation that the petitioner acquiesced to the second corrigendum by submitting a bid without challenging it. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. denial of relief to prevent unfair advantage and avoid reopening the bidding process for other candidates. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The petitioner is seeking for a direction to issue the respondents to open his bid and consider his bid along with others without reference to the turnover criteria prescribed in the tender conditions.
2. The basis for this claim is that, though the qualification criteria in the original tender notification stipulated a minimum turnover of 19.3 Crores, by way of a corrigendum dated 18.05.2026 the annual turnover was reduced to 7.50 Crores. According to the petitioner, this corrigendum/clarification entitled the petitioner to participate. However, subsequently, yet another clarification was issued on 30.05.2026 once again restoring the turnover criteria to 19.3 Crores.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that this flip-flop of the State has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner and though he has spent considerable amounts and has submitted his bid, the same has been rejected on the ground that there was a second corrigendum restoring the original turnover criteria.
4. As could be seen from the above facts, there was indeed a corrigendum issued on 18.05.2026 reducing the turnover criteria, but the same was reversed in the second corrigendum dated 30.05.2026.
5. The petitioner did, in fact, submit a representation in the light of this restoration of the original criteria, for which a reply was given to him on 13.06.2026 to the effect that the turnover condition was to be as per the Gujarat State Procurement Policy, 2024, and therefore, there was the necessity for issuing the second corrigendum.
6. Despite this reply on 13.06.2026, the petitioner has chosen to submit his bid without challenging this second corrigendum. It is only after the petitioner's bid has been rejected, has he approached this Court on 19.08.2026.
7. In our view, since the petitioner did not choose to challenge the second corrigendum or the reply given to him on 13.06.2026, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief since permitting the petitioner's bid to be considered would open the field afresh and there would be a cascade of people putting forth the condition that special concessions were given to the petitioner in respect of the turnover criteria.
8. We are therefore of the view that we are unable to entertain the petition. The present petition is therefore dismissed.
