A bidder cannot belatedly challenge a known tender condition after submitting its bid and being declared non-responsive.

The National Capital Region Transport Corporation Limited issued a tender on 12 February 2026 containing Clause 2.4.2(d), which required the lead partner of a joint venture to possess a valid “A” Class/EHT Electrical Contractor Licence issued by the Government of Haryana.

The petitioner’s lead partner possessed EHT licences issued by Delhi, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, while the Haryana “A” Class licence was held by the joint-venture partner, M/s ADECO Energy India Pvt. Ltd.

The petitioner challenged the restrictive licence condition and sought consideration of its bid through representations dated 11 February 2026 and 13 May 2026.

The respondent did not accept the petitioner’s contention, and the petitioner’s technical bid was declared non-responsive on 19 August 2026.

The respondent stated that bidder queries had been clarified after consultation with Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, which insisted upon a Haryana licence to ensure timely execution of the work.

The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, quashing of Clause 2.4.2(d), consideration of its bid, re-tendering, and restraint on further tender proceedings.

Whether the petitioner could challenge Clause 2.4.2(d) of the tender, requiring the lead partner of a joint venture to possess a valid Haryana “A” Class/EHT Electrical Contractor Licence, after submitting its bid and being declared technically non-responsive.

Whether the respondent’s failure to expressly respond to the petitioner’s representations until the technical rejection of its bid prevented dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring consideration of its bid, re-tendering, or restraint of the tender process.

The Court applied the principles of delay and laches, waiver and acquiescence, and the rule that a bidder who participates in a tender with knowledge of its conditions cannot ordinarily challenge those conditions after being declared non-responsive.

It also applied the principle that tender conditions must be complied with as stipulated by the procuring authority, particularly where the requirement is supported by the concerned technical authority.

The Court followed its earlier orders in W.P.(C) 11832/2026 and W.P.(C) 11833/2026, which held that a challenge to the same Haryana licence requirement was belated when the petitioners had known of the condition but failed to challenge it promptly.

The Court held that the Haryana licence requirement had been clearly communicated to all bidders through the tender portal and that bidders were expressly required to comply with the bid conditions.

The petitioner therefore had knowledge of the impugned condition before submitting its bid.

Further, in its own bid documents, the petitioner declared that it had downloaded and examined the complete bidding documents, including all addenda, corrigenda and clarifications, and had no reservations regarding them.

Its subsequent challenge, after the bid was found technically non-responsive, amounted to an impermissible belated challenge to a condition accepted during participation in the tender.

The Court rejected the distinction based on the respondent’s alleged failure to respond to the representations, observing that the condition had nevertheless been clarified and made binding on all bidders through the portal.

The respondent’s explanation that the requirement was insisted upon by HVPNL for timely execution of the work further supported the tender condition.

On parity with the earlier decisions concerning the identical issue, the Court found no ground for interference.

It held that the challenge to Clause 2.4.2(d) was belated and untenable because the petitioner had participated in the tender with knowledge of, and without reservation to, the Haryana licence requirement, and had approached the Court only after its bid was declared non-responsive.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of as infructuous.