A bidder cannot fault tender authorities for non-participation caused by its failure to complete mandatory demonstrations.

The petitioner challenged Tender No. JP/889-250-LZ-MR-4060/82 dated 17 June 2026, issued by Respondent No. 1 for the “Red Water Destruction Package” for the TNT Plant at HEF, Khadki, Pune.

The original bid due date was 8 July 2026, which was extended to 15 July 2026 after the pre-bid process and supply of civil-work/soil data.

Red-water samples were supplied to the petitioner on 14 July 2026, and the bid deadline was subsequently extended to 3 August 2026.

The petitioner conducted the incineration pilot demonstration on 30 July 2026 and submitted its report on 31 July 2026.

Respondent No. 2 furnished the evaluation report for that demonstration at approximately 1:05 p.m. on 3 August 2026, shortly before the bid-opening time of 2:30 p.m.

The petitioner contended that it could not incorporate the evaluation report into its bid and sought a further extension of the bid deadline and uploading of the tender on the GeM portal.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had failed to complete the required evaporation-section demonstration, although the tender required demonstration reports for both sections and other bidders had completed the exercise.

Whether the respondents were required to further extend the bid deadline on the ground that the petitioner received the incineration evaluation report shortly before the bid-opening time.

Whether the petitioner was prevented from submitting its bid because it had not furnished the demonstration report for the evaporation section, as required by Clause 3.1.2 of the tender conditions.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing reconsideration of the tender timelines or uploading/linking of the tender on the GeM portal.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as invoked in the petitioner’s prayer for mandamus.

It applied the governing tender condition, namely the note under Clause 3.1.2 of the Bidder Qualification Criteria, which provided that bids containing a demonstration report for only one section—either the evaporation section or the incineration section—would not be considered for evaluation.

The Court further applied the principle that a bidder must comply with the express qualification requirements of the tender and that the tendering authority’s decision concerning timelines, particularly in a tender stated to be in public interest, would not be interfered with absent a legally sustainable defect in the decision-making process.

The Court held that the petitioner’s inability to submit a bid was attributable to its own failure to complete the evaporation-section demonstration, rather than to any disabling act of the respondents.

Since Clause 3.1.2 required demonstration reports for both the evaporation and incineration sections, submission of only the incineration report was insufficient for bid evaluation.

The petitioner’s own email showed that the evaporation demonstration had not yet been completed and that it sought additional time because its plant fabrication was still in progress.

The Court noted that other bidders had completed the evaporation demonstration and found that nothing prevented the petitioner from doing so on 30 July 2026.

Accordingly, the petitioner could not attribute its non-participation to the late receipt of the incineration evaluation report or demand a further extension, particularly when the bid dates had already been extended and the tender was stated to involve public interest.

It held that the respondents were not obliged to extend the bid deadline further and that the petitioner was itself responsible for failing to furnish the required evaporation-section demonstration report.

The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, along with the pending application; no direction was issued for revaluation of the tender terms, extension of time, or uploading/linking of the tender on the GeM portal.