High Court of Bombay Considers Challenge to Rejection of Technical Bid in Tender for Bus Station Reconstruction Dindori. The petitioner alleges arbitrariness in disqualification for want of signed Geo-tagging certificate despite alleged non-cooperation of authorities.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of a technical bid in a government tender process

Petitioner sought quashing of the disqualification order dated 5 July 2024 and a direction to the tendering authority to accept its bid for the tender for reconstruction of Dindori bus station

Petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the ground that it had not submitted a Geo-tagging certificate signed by the Divisional Engineer, despite its alleged diligent efforts to obtain the signature

On 23 July 2024, the High Court directed the opening of the petitioner's financial bid to ascertain the quoted rates. The successful bidder, M/s. R.K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd., challenged this order by filing SLP (Civil) No. 18014 of 2024. The Supreme Court allowed the SLP on 25 August 2025, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the High Court to take up the interim application or decide the main matter expeditiously. The case was listed as a Supreme Court expedited matter on 19 September 2025.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid on the ground of non-submission of signed Geo-tagging certificate was arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide Whether the High Court under Article 226 can direct the tendering authority to accept the petitioner's bid

Petitioner: argued that despite multiple requests, the Divisional Engineer deliberately avoided signing the Geo-tagging certificate; there was no legal requirement to submit a report signed by the Divisional Engineer; the rejection was arbitrary and mala fide Respondents (MSRTC): contended that the petitioner did not diligently approach the Divisional Engineer between 17-20 February 2024; a system-generated message about bid opening was automatically sent; the petitioner was given an additional opportunity on 29 February 2024 to submit the signed certificate but failed to do so Respondent No.4 (Successful Bidder): opposed the petition citing limited scope of judicial review in tender matters as per Maa Binda Express Carrier; bidders are only entitled to fair and equal treatment; tender terms are not open to judicial scrutiny unless tailor-made

8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also, the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process. 9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts the Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all po.

Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2024 was filed. On 23 July 2024, the High Court directed opening of petitioner's financial bid and impleadment of Principal Secretary (I.T.). Respondent No.4, the successful bidder, filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18014 of 2024 challenging this order. The Supreme Court allowed the SLP on 25 August 2025, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the High Court to take up the interim application or decide the main matter after hearing parties. The case was listed as a Supreme Court expedited matter on 19 September 2025. The Court heard the parties at length, reserved judgment on 17 November 2025, and pronounced it on 21 November 2025.

• Companies Act, 2013: