A bidder who participates in a revised tender process cannot later challenge its agreed conditions.

The Director, E.S.I. (M.B.) Scheme, West Bengal issued e-tenders for supplying cooked diet to indoor patients at various ESI hospitals.

After financial bids were opened, 15 bidders quoted the identical rate of ₹173.65 and were declared L1 bidders.

At a meeting held on 29 July 2026, attended by the bidders, the Tender Inviting Authority decided to invite sealed revised bids, requiring the bidders to quote consolidated revised rates in percentage and informing them that minimum accepting rates had been fixed for each hospital.

The petitioners participated in the revised process and submitted sealed bids.

The Authority subsequently fixed different consolidated reduced rates for different hospitals and awarded contracts to bidders whose revised quotations were closest to those rates.

In W.P.A. No. 23264 of 2026, the petitioner challenged the award for Durgapur ESI Hospital, contending that his 9% quotation was lower than the private respondent’s 8.42% quotation when assessed against the L1 ceiling rate.

In W.P.A. No. 22551 of 2026, the petitioner challenged the tender process and awards concerning seven ESI hospitals, alleging violation of Clause 17(iv) of the NIT and Memorandum No. 2320-F(Y) dated 7 June 2022.

The State and private respondents argued that the petitioners, having participated in the revised process without objection and having failed to succeed, could not subsequently challenge it; they also alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioner in W.P.A. No. 22551 of 2026.

1. Whether the Tender Inviting Authority acted illegally by fixing hospital-wise consolidated reduced rates and awarding contracts to bidders whose revised quotations were nearest to those rates, instead of selecting the lowest revised bidder under Clause 17(iv) of the NIT.

2. Whether the tender process violated Memorandum No. 2320-F(Y) dated 7 June 2022, the consequential government circular, and the procedure prescribed for resolving a tie among L1 bidders.

3. Whether the petitioners, having attended the meeting and participated in the revised sealed-bid process, were precluded from challenging the procedure after being unsuccessful.

4. Whether suppression of material facts by the petitioner in W.P.A. No. 22551 of 2026 justified dismissal of the writ petition.

The Court applied Clause 17(iv) of the NIT, which prescribed that where L1 bidders were tied, sealed bids would be invited while keeping the discovered L1 rate as the ceiling and the lowest bidder would ordinarily be selected; it also referred to the alternative procedure where no bidder offered a further reduction, including distribution or selection based on credentials depending on whether the item was divisible or non-divisible.

The Court considered Memorandum No. 2320-F(Y) dated 7 June 2022 and the subsequent government circular requiring adherence to the prescribed tie-bid procedure.

It relied on Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd., 1996 Supreme (SC) 1921, for the principle that tender conditions and evaluation criteria cannot be altered during the tender process.

It relied on Saheli Nandy v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.A. No. 25906 of 2023, for the principle that the “goal posts” cannot be changed after commencement of the tender.

It relied on Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759, regarding restraint in judicial review of tender matters and the need to protect public interest.

It relied on K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, which holds that a writ petitioner invoking equitable jurisdiction must make full and candid disclosure and cannot suppress material facts.

The Court held that all bidders had attended the 29 July 2026 meeting and accepted the procedure requiring submission of sealed bids containing consolidated revised rates in percentage.

Both petitioners thereafter participated in that procedure without protest.

Although Clause 17(iv) referred to selection of the lowest bidder in the event of a tie, the Court treated the meeting decision and the petitioners’ subsequent conduct as material: having acted upon the revised procedure, the petitioners could not challenge it only after failing to secure the contracts.

The Court distinguished Saheli Nandy because, unlike that case, the petitioners here had expressly participated in and acted upon the revised bidding arrangement.

The awards were based on the bidders’ proximity to the hospital-wise consolidated rates fixed by the Authority, such as the 8.44% reduced rate for Durgapur, against which the private respondent quoted 8.42%.

The Court also found that the petitioner in W.P.A. No. 22551 of 2026 had not disclosed his quotations for Budge Budge and Durgapur hospitals and had suppressed his participation in the 29 July meeting, amounting to suppression of material facts under K.D. Sharma.

In the circumstances, the Court found no illegality warranting judicial interference in the tender process or contract awards.

It held that the petitioners, having participated in the revised sealed-bid process and having failed to succeed, could not subsequently challenge the procedure; the hospital-wise consolidated reduced rates and consequential awards were not shown to be illegal; and the suppression of material facts further disentitled the petitioner in W.P.A. No. 22551 of 2026 to relief.

Both writ petitions—W.P.A. No. 22551 of 2026 and W.P.A. No. 23264 of 2026—were dismissed, and the awards of contracts in favour of the private respondents were left undisturbed.