A bidder failing essential qualifications cannot challenge the successful bidder’s eligibility.

MCD issued a tender dated 22.06.2026 for establishing a 300 TPD bio-gas/CBG facility at Ghazipur, Delhi.

The Petitioner was a constituent of a joint venture which participated in the tender.

The Petitioner had also participated in an earlier tender for the same project, which was cancelled on 22.06.2026, following which the subject tender was issued with a modified technical-experience requirement under Clause 4A, requiring experience in designing, constructing, commissioning and operating waste-to-biogas/CBG facilities using cattle dung and biodegradable wet municipal waste.

The Petitioner relied on an MoU between its JV partner and OGB Enviro Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. to satisfy the revised qualification requirement, but MCD disqualified the bid on 31.07.2026 and rejected the Petitioner’s representation on 05.08.2026, holding that OGB India did not possess the requisite qualifying experience.

The Petitioner conceded that it and its JV partners did not independently satisfy Clause 4A, but challenged the technical qualification of Respondent No. 3, alleging that Respondent No. 3, through its constituent Noble Exchange Environment Solutions Pune LLP, was improperly relying on the experience of a distinct entity, Noble Exchange Environment Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

MCD maintained that Respondent No. 3 qualified on the basis of the Pune CBG project, which had originally been awarded to Noble Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently assigned to Noble LLP under the concession agreement.

MCD relied on certificates issued by PMC and BDTC and independent verification obtained from Pune Municipal Corporation.

Whether MCD erred in disqualifying the Petitioner’s JV for failure to satisfy the essential technical-experience requirement under Clause 4A of the subject tender.

Whether MCD relaxed or improperly applied Clause 4A in favour of Respondent No. 3 by permitting Noble Exchange Environment Solutions Pune LLP to rely on the experience of the Pune CBG project originally awarded to Noble Exchange Environment Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Whether a bidder admittedly disqualified under the tender conditions could challenge the technical qualification of the successful bidder.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review of tender decisions, under which the Court does not substitute its own evaluation for that of the tendering authority unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or contrary to the tender conditions.

It also relied on Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Ors., (2023) 19 SCC 1, particularly paragraphs 49–51, concerning the limited maintainability of a challenge by a bidder who is itself ineligible or disqualified from the tender process.

The Court further applied Clause 4A of the subject tender, which prescribed the essential prior-experience qualification, and accepted the distinction between impermissible relaxation of a qualification condition and an evaluation by which a bidder is found to satisfy that condition on verified project experience.

The Court first found that the Petitioner’s JV did not satisfy Clause 4A.

The experience relied upon through OGB India was ultimately traceable to Arciplug Oy, Finland, and the Petitioner failed to establish that such experience had become the experience of OGB India or that there was sufficient continuity or transfer of the completed projects.

The Court therefore found no error in MCD’s disqualification of the Petitioner.

As to Respondent No. 3, MCD had not relaxed Clause 4A but had concluded, after examining the Pune project documents, the PMC and BDTC certificates, and verification from PMC, that the Pune CBG facility satisfied the stipulated experience requirement and had been assigned from Noble Pvt. Ltd. to Noble LLP in accordance with the concession agreement.

The Petitioner did not dispute that the Pune facility met the substantive capacity and feedstock requirements; its objection was limited to the identity of the entity operating the project.

In light of the Petitioner’s admitted ineligibility and MCD’s assertion that Respondent No. 3 had not received any relaxation, the Court declined to examine, at the Petitioner’s instance, the correctness of the assignment documents relied upon by Respondent No. 3, applying the principle in Tata Motors.

Applying the principles stated in Tata Motors, the Court declined to adjudicate the correctness of Respondent No. 3’s claim regarding assignment of the Pune project and expressly left open the veracity of its documents and the adequacy of MCD’s verification process.

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