A bidder accepting tender conditions is estopped from challenging them after disqualification.

The petitioner, a partnership firm providing Cable TV services, participated in a GeM tender floated by the Ministry of Defence for providing Cable TV services at Army Hospital (R&R) under Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6030488.

After submitting its bid and participating in the tender process, the petitioner was technically disqualified.

The respondent cited, inter alia, non-compliance with the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) requirement and the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) turnover requirement.

The petitioner contended that MSMEs were exempt from EMD and that the Bid Document prescribed an OEM turnover of Rs.100 lakh, whereas the Additional Terms and Conditions allegedly imposed an excessive requirement of Rs.100 crore.

The petitioner had submitted an undertaking accepting all general and additional terms and conditions of the tender.

After the petitioner’s disqualification, the tender was awarded to another bidder, and the successful bidder commenced performance subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

The petitioner challenged the communication dated 11 April 2025 rejecting its bid.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the OEM minimum-turnover condition after participating in the tender and expressly accepting its general and additional terms and conditions.

Whether the respondent’s rejection of the petitioner’s bid for failure to satisfy the Rs.100 crore OEM turnover requirement was arbitrary, disproportionate, biased, or violative of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in respect of the alleged EMD exemption and other objections concerning the tender process.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review of tender and procurement decisions, under which an unsuccessful bidder cannot ordinarily challenge tender conditions after participating in the process with knowledge of, and consent to, those conditions.

The Court further applied the doctrine of estoppel arising from the petitioner’s express undertaking accepting the general and additional terms and conditions of the tender.

The Court also recognised that a bidder failing to meet a mandatory eligibility condition may be rejected as non-conforming with the tender requirements.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court held that the petitioner was aware of the OEM turnover requirement and had nevertheless submitted its bid, despite not meeting the prescribed minimum of Rs.100 crore.

Its written undertaking expressly accepted all general and additional tender conditions, including any conditions contained anywhere in the tender documents.

Accordingly, the petitioner was estopped from subsequently challenging the very condition that it had accepted, particularly after being unsuccessful in the bidding process; the challenge was therefore viewed as an afterthought.

Since the petitioner did not satisfy the OEM turnover criterion, the respondent was justified in treating its bid as non-compliant and rejecting it.

In view of this finding, and because the contract had already been awarded and was being performed, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the petitioner’s remaining submissions regarding EMD exemption, alleged bias in favour of Den Networks Ltd., proportionality, or natural justice.

Having accepted the tender conditions and participated without demur, the petitioner was estopped from challenging them after disqualification.

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit, and the pending applications were dismissed as infructuous.