2026 Supreme(Raj) 413

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Sukhbir Singh Sidhu, S/o. Sh. Mahendra Singh Sidhu, Proprietor Of M/s Sukhbir Singh Sidhu - Petitioner 
Versus 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), through its Chairman – Respondent 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16990 of 2025
Decided On : 27-05-2026

Post-bid price negotiations in open competitive bidding are strictly prohibited by statute. While administrative actions violating this are illegal, courts may exercise discretion to withhold the quashing of an already operational contract if the petition suffers from significant delay and balancing public interest is required.

Headnote:(A) Transparency in Public Procurement - Statutes - Section 15 - Prohibition of post-bid price negotiations - Administrative discretion - Legal standards - Statutory bodies must conform to parent legislation; any tender condition permitting negotiations in open competitive bidding contrary to the governing Act is ultra vires and void. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 21)

(B) Judicial Review - Maintainability - Commercial contracts - While courts exercise restraint in contractual matters, judicial intervention is mandatory when a public authority acts in flagrant disregard of statutory provisions. (Para 11)

(C) Administrative Law - Estoppel - No estoppel can operate against a statute - Participation in illegal negotiation processes by a bidder does not waive the right to challenge a fundamental statutory violation. (Para 16)

(D) Relief - Delay and Laches - Discretionary power - Court may decline to quash an established contract to prevent administrative chaos and public inconvenience, despite noting the illegality of the initial awarding process. (Paras 17, 18, 22)

Facts of the case:
A tender process was initiated for the procurement of transport services. The petitioner, having qualified as the lowest bidder, challenged the action of the procuring entity in conducting post-bid price negotiations with other participants, which led to the award of the contract to a higher-ranked bidder at a lower negotiated rate. The petitioner contended that such negotiations were expressly prohibited by the governing statute for open competitive bidding, rendering the award arbitrary and illegal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that instructions or tender conditions issued by authorities cannot override explicit statutory provisions. Since the governing Act permits price negotiations only in explicitly defined exceptional cases, conducting such negotiations in an open tender represents a patent legal infirmity. However, due to a significant unexplained delay in filing the petition during which the contract was operational and service delivery commenced, the court refrained from quashing the award to avoid public inconvenience.

Issues: 1. Whether post-bid price negotiations in open competitive bidding are permissible under the governing statute. 2. Whether a bidder's participation in an illegal negotiation process precludes them from seeking judicial review based on principles of estoppel. 3. Whether the court should interfere with a contract award when clear statutory violations exist but the contract is already operational.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory mandates prevail over administrative tender conditions; subordinate legislation or guidelines cannot supplant the parent Act. While post-bid negotiations in open tenders are inherently illegal, the court's power to grant relief is discretionary and may be withheld if the petition is marred by undue delay, laches, and significant public interest in the continuity of the service.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for future compliance; primary relief of quashing the contract denied due to delay and public interest.