Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The principle that the employer or the authority who formulates the tender is the best judge is reinforced by Supreme Court judgments, which discourage courts from interfering in the technical or policy decisions involved in tendering ["Minakshi Traders VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["Manjeet Plastic Industries VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["All Assam Private Security Agencies Association, represented by its President vs Tezpur University, represented by its Vice Chancellor - Gauhati"], ["Hemanta Bora, S/o Late Padma Kanta Bora VS Oil India Ltd. - Gauhati"], ["Paritosh Services Agency vs Notified Area Council, Remuna, Balasore - Orissa"], ["Rishikesh Chem VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta"].
Writ Petitions Cannot Challenge Tender Conditions Post-Participation:
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent legal stance across the cited judgments is that the employer or the authority issuing the tender is the best judge of its requirements and conditions. Courts are reluctant to interfere with the tender process once the conditions are set and the process has advanced or concluded. Challenges to tender conditions are only permissible if made at a very early stage or if conditions are arbitrary or illegal. Post participation, the law strongly favors respecting the employer's or authority’s discretion, and writ petitions are generally dismissed on the grounds that such matters are within the domain of policy and technical judgment of the issuer ["Minakshi Traders VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["Avani Paridhi Energy And Communications Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Shri Aditya Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Environment Forest/Climate Change Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Manjeet Plastic Industries VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Hemanta Bora, S/o Late Padma Kanta Bora VS Oil India Ltd. - Gauhati"], ["Paritosh Services Agency vs Notified Area Council, Remuna, Balasore - Orissa"].
In the competitive world of public procurement, tender processes often spark disputes. A common question arises: Is the employer the best judge in a tender matter, and can a writ petition challenge tender conditions? This issue frequently surfaces when bidders feel aggrieved by eligibility criteria, specifications, or evaluation methods. However, Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have consistently held that tendering authorities hold significant discretion. Judicial interference is rare and limited to extreme cases of arbitrariness or mala fides. This post explores this principle, drawing from key judgments to provide clarity for businesses, contractors, and legal professionals.
Note: This article offers general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Courts recognize the employer or tendering authority as the most competent entity to assess its own needs and interpret tender documents. As established in multiple rulings, The authority issuing NIT is better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret the NIT. Such interpretation cannot be interfered unless patently perverse or mala fide. Airport Authority of India VS Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1000
This deference stems from the expertise of the employer in technical and commercial matters. Similarly, The tender floating authority is the best judge of its requirements and the best judge to interpret its tender conditions. VF Worldwide Holdings Ltd VS Ministry Of External Affairs, Government Of India - 2021 Supreme(Del) 687 Courts emphasize that the owner or employer, having authored the documents, understands them best. VF Worldwide Holdings Ltd VS Ministry Of External Affairs, Government Of India - 2021 Supreme(Del) 687
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not tools for re-evaluating tender merits. The scope of judicial review is narrow, focusing on process fairness rather than outcomes. The courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. Balaji Ventures Private Limited VS Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1341
In tender disputes, courts exercise restraint to avoid disrupting public projects. For instance, in a case involving eligibility criteria for tractor supplies, the court dismissed challenges, stating the authority is the best judge to interpret the tender documents and determine the eligibility criteria. Zahoor Ahmad Khan VS UT of J. & K. - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 659 It highlighted preventing arbitrariness without micromanaging feasibility. Zahoor Ahmad Khan VS UT of J. & K. - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 659
Key guidelines include:- Courts do not re-write tender terms, which are contractual. BAKSHI SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PVT. LTD. - 2016 6 Supreme 1- Review checks for arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides, not technical merits. BAKSHI SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PVT. LTD. - 2016 6 Supreme 1
A critical rule: Bidders who participate cannot later contest conditions via writ. After participating in the tender process, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and challenge the very same tender process. Central Coalfields Limited VS SLL – SML (Joint Venture Consortium) - 2016 6 Supreme 353Airport Authority of India VS Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1000
This estoppel principle is reinforced across cases. In a coal block auction dispute, petitioners who bid without protest were barred from challenging post-loss. MONNET ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD VS UNION OF INDIA - 2016 Supreme(Del) 3728 Similarly, A person or entity who stands out of the tender process or fails to comply... cannot acquire any right. R. T. E. T. I. Environtech Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Gandhinagar, Gujarat VS Government of Tamil Nadu Highways and Minor Ports Department - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 989
Examples:- In a safety barriers tender, the court upheld conditions despite allegations of tailoring, as the challenger had locus but no merit. R. T. E. T. I. Environtech Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Gandhinagar, Gujarat VS Government of Tamil Nadu Highways and Minor Ports Department - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 989- Passport services tender: Quoting 'zero' for services was valid; prior participation estopped objections. VF Worldwide Holdings Ltd VS Ministry Of External Affairs, Government Of India - 2021 Supreme(Del) 687
Judicial review is permissible only for:- Arbitrariness: Patently irrational conditions. Balaji Ventures Private Limited VS Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1341- Mala Fides: Evidence of bias or favoritism. Airport Authority of India VS Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1000- Discrimination: Unequal treatment without reason. BAKSHI SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PVT. LTD. - 2016 6 Supreme 1
Even then, courts do not substitute judgments. The court in judicial review cannot re-write conditions of NIT. BAKSHI SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PVT. LTD. - 2016 6 Supreme 1 In an MSME policy case, interference occurred due to misinterpretation of policy for work contracts, but only to quash the award without halting the process. Sterling and Wilson Private Limited VS Union of India represented by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1022
In technical evaluations, like airport services, courts defer to committees: In technical matters, the evaluation committee's decision cannot be interfered with, as the employer is best judge. Sabre GLBL Inc. VS Air India Limited - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2442
Recent cases echo these tenets:- Roller Barriers Tender: Specifications not 'tailor-made'; court slow to interfere unless per se illegal, arbitrary, shocks the conscience. R. T. E. T. I. Environtech Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Gandhinagar, Gujarat VS Government of Tamil Nadu Highways and Minor Ports Department - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 989- E-Tender Evaluation: Conditions upheld as non-discriminatory; post-participation challenge dismissed. R. K. Jain & Sons Hospitality Pvt Ld VS Union of India - 2020 Supreme(Del) 699- Firefighting Systems: Policy misapplication led to quashing, but emphasized work contracts differ from goods supply. Sterling and Wilson Private Limited VS Union of India represented by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1022
These illustrate consistency: Employers' discretion prevails unless fundamentally flawed.
The legal consensus is clear: The employer is typically the best judge in tender matters, and writ petitions rarely succeed in challenging conditions absent arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides. Once participated, bidders are estopped from contesting. Airport Authority of India VS Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1000BAKSHI SECURITY & PERSONNEL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS DEVKISHAN COMPUTED PVT. LTD. - 2016 6 Supreme 1Balaji Ventures Private Limited VS Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1341
Key Takeaways:1. Respect employer expertise; courts restrain from interference.2. Challenge before bidding to avoid bars.3. Judicial review ensures fairness, not perfection.
By understanding these boundaries, parties can navigate tenders efficiently, minimizing disputes and delays. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence for competitive edges.
#TenderLaw #JudicialReview #ContractDisputes
It has further been prayed in this writ petition that the respondents be directed to accept the bid of the petitioner ignoring the impugned clauses of the tender notice, which are under challenge in this writ petition. 6. ... is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. ... In Writ Petition No.7006 of 2023, prayer made is to quash the tender not....
Any such challenge to the tender conditions is required to be made by the person at the very first instance and an unsuccessful tenderer cannot raise a ground that the tender conditions were in any manner unlawful so as to reverse the decision at the eleventh hour. ... It is trite law that a tenderer having accepted the tender conditions and submitted the tender does not have locus to challenge the condit....
It was held that the terms and conditions in the tender are prescribed by the Government bearing in mind the nature of contract and in such matters the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. ... Petitioner has been declared ineligible in view of Section VI (a) of the Impugned Tender conditions which has already been challenged in the instant writ #HL_....
However, the said condition has been deleted by the respondents in the fresh tender which is subject matter in the instant writ petition. ... The writ petition is stated to be still pending before this Court. It is contended that in order to circumvent the aforesaid order of the Court, the respondents cancelled the bid dated 19.04.2022 and issued fresh bid, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. ... The authority whi....
It is settled principle of law that the bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him and the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court’s interference should be minimal ... Commr., Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpn. [(2000) 5 SCC 287] It was held that the terms and conditions in the tender are prescribed by the Government bearing in mind the natu....
of such tender conditions set-out by the employer. ... The learned Single Judge upon considering the issues arising in the said writ petition, was pleased vide order, dated 16.05.2024, in WP(c)956/2024, to dismiss the said writ petition, negating the claim made by the appellant Association, herein, for interference with the Notice Inviting ... in the matter. ... Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in th....
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. ... is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court’s interference should be minimal. ... The petitioner cannot demand that the tender conditions should be changed to suit his needs, so that he can be a part of the bidding/tender process. 14. ... (supra), which is to the effect that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender d....
In that view of the matter, it is not appreciable how respondent No.1 - original writ petitioner being an NGO would have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs. Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an“ aggrieved party“. ... is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court-s interference should be minimal. ... is the best judge....
Before filing the present writ petition, the tender process had reached its finality after the completion of the necessary formalities, and thus, the petitioner cannot challenge the LOI dated 08.01.2024. 18. ... Where a clear remedy is available to the petitioner, but, he cannot seek remedy by filing a writ petition. ... The relief even if the writ petition is allowed, cannot be granted to the pet....
State of Orissa and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 517, declined to entertain the challenge and dismissed the writ petition. ... the same has been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition inasmuch as there has been no arbitrary exercise of power by the tender issuing authority and the tender issuing authority has acted ... Each word in the ten....
The guiding principles are as under: 1) The tender floating authority is the best judge of its requirements and the best judge to interpret its tender conditions. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. 1) The tender floating authority is the best judge of its requirements and the best judge to interpret its tender conditions.
I. THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO CHALLENGE THE TENDER CONDITIONS/BID DOCUMENTS AFTER HAVING PARTICIPATED AND LOST IN THE TENDER PROCESS. II. IN TECHNICAL MATTERS, THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE'S DECISION CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH, AS THE EMPLOYER IS BEST JUDGE OF HIS REQUIREMENTS. The AIL has advanced the following legal submissions:
After participating in the tender process, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and challenge the tender conditions. The said conditions were challenged before the High Court of Gujarat and a Division Bench has upheld these conditions. Vs. DRMC Ltd.,2013 SCCOnLineDelhi 1982 , had observed thus:- "68. It is also contended that the petitioner after having participated in the tender process by submitting his bid, cannot turn around and challenge the tender conditions. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court in Siemens Aktiengesellschaft an....
Mr. T.R. Andhiyarjuna, Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2, opposed the writ petition on the ground that the party which participates in the tender and take its chance and then fails in the tender, cannot be permitted to challenge the terms and conditions of the tender. The challenge to Condition No.4 as being arbitrary was an after thought. He submitted that petitioner could not approbate or reprobate.
The present writ petition was filed on 02.07.2015 and the bid in the Jamkhani coal block was submitted by the petitioner on 18.07.2015. The result is that the petitioner, here, too, would not be entitled to any relief. As such, it is contended, the petitioner having participated in the tender process cannot be allowed to challenge the tender conditions. In the light of the discussion in respect of the other petitions, this plea of the respondents would also merit acceptance.
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
