Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by a partnership firm, Gurudatta Infrastructures, challenging the rejection of its technical bid in a tender floated by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) for reconstruction of a bus station at Dindori. The e-Tender Notice No.10/2023-24 was published on 6 February 2024. A corrigendum introduced a mandatory condition requiring tenderers to submit a Geo-tagging site visit report signed by the Divisional Engineer. The petitioner claimed that despite visiting the site and making multiple attempts, it could not obtain the Divisional Engineer's signature due to alleged deliberate refusal. On 5 July 2024, the bid opening summary declared the petitioner's bid non-responsive on the ground that Annexure-IV lacked the Divisional Engineer's signature. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the bid opening summary and a direction to accept its bid. An earlier order dated 23 July 2024 in a related writ petition directed opening of the petitioner's financial bid. The successful bidder, M/s. R.K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd., filed a Special Leave Petition, resulting in the Supreme Court directing the High Court to expeditiously hear the application for interim order or decide the main matter. In the High Court, the petitioner argued that the signature requirement was not statutory and was a minor defect, and that the Divisional Engineer's refusal was biased. The respondents argued that the petitioner had no vested right, the dispute involved factual issues unsuitable for writ proceedings, and that judicial review in tender matters is limited. The court reserved judgment on 17 November 2025 and pronounced it on 21 November 2025. The provided text does not include the court's analysis, final decision, or operative directions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of petitioner's technical bid for non-submission of a Geo-tagging report signed by the Divisional Engineer was arbitrary and illegal, and whether the High Court should interfere in the tender process.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 174
Writ Petition No. 11099 of 2024
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ., Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
A. M. Kulkarni for petitioner, Nitesh Bhutekar for respondent nos.2-4 (MSRTC), Medha Jondhale for respondent no.5 (M/s. R. K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd.), Neha S. Bhide for respondent no.1 (State)
Gurudatta Infrastructures
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of a technical bid in a public tender process.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the bid opening summary dated 05.07.2024 and a direction to the tendering authority to accept the petitioner's bid and open its financial bid.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive on the ground that Annexure-IV, the Geo-tagging site visit report, was not signed by the Divisional Engineer, which the petitioner claimed was due to the deliberate refusal of the Divisional Engineer to sign despite repeated requests.
Previous Decisions
On 23.07.2024, in Writ Petition No.10052 of 2024, the High Court directed opening of the petitioner's financial bid. Subsequently, the successful bidder filed SLP (Civil) No.18014 of 2024, which was allowed by the Supreme Court on 25.08.2025, directing the High Court to hear the interim application or decide the main matter.
Issues
Whether the condition requiring a Geo-tagging report signed by the Divisional Engineer was a mandatory prerequisite for bid validity, and whether its non-compliance justified outright rejection.
Whether the petitioner had made genuine efforts to obtain the signature and the refusal was arbitrary or biased, thereby vitiating the tender process.
Scope of judicial review in tender matters and whether the High Court could interfere in the evaluation of technical bids.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the signature requirement had no statutory backing, was a minor defect, and could have been waived as per the decisions in Poddar Steel Corporation and BVG India Limited; it contended that the Divisional Engineer intentionally refused to sign, demonstrating bias, and that the respondents' failure to file an affidavit-in-reply amounted to admission of the facts.
The respondents argued that the petitioner had no vested right to participate or to have its bid accepted; the dispute raised factual issues unsuitable for writ proceedings; and judicial review in tender matters is limited, as laid down in Maa Binda Express Carrier, to ensuring fair and non-discriminatory treatment without substitution of the authority's commercial decisions.
Judgment Excerpts
The grievance of the petitioner-Firm is that the bid submitted by it was rejected on technical ground and M/s. R. K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd. has been illegally declared successful bidder. (Para 2)
The petitioner states that the subject tender appears to have been declared non-responsive purportedly for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted the Geo-tapping certificate signed by the Divisional Engineer. (Para 3 of Order dated 23.07.2024)
The learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm submitted that the in-built technical effect of Geo-tagging shall provide sufficient proof of site visit and certification and signature of the Divisional Engineer would not change the factual aspect. (Para 7)
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. (Quoting Maa Binda Express Carrier, Para 8)
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition on 5 August 2024. On 23 July 2024, in a related Writ Petition No.10052 of 2024, the High Court directed opening of the petitioner's financial bid. Aggrieved by that order, M/s. R. K. Infraconstro Pvt. Ltd. filed SLP (Civil) No.18014 of 2024. The Supreme Court, by order dated 25 August 2025, allowed the SLP and directed the High Court to take up the application for interim order or decide the main matter. Thereupon, the High Court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 17 November 2025, pronouncing it on 21 November 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
