A non-participant cannot claim reopening of a tender after the original bid deadline expires.

Rajkot Municipal Corporation issued a tender on 12 August 2025 for the comprehensive operation and maintenance of a Floating Trash Skimmer and Aquatic Weed Removal Machine for five years. The original tender required bidders to have experience in similar operation and maintenance work involving a minimum contract value of ₹61.90 lakhs, with the last date for submission of bids fixed as 28 August 2025.

By corrigendum dated 27 August 2025, the Corporation increased the minimum contract-value requirement to ₹300 lakhs and extended the bid-submission deadline to 6 September 2025.

Another bidder challenged the corrigendum in Special Civil Application No. 12409 of 2025. On 15 September 2025, the High Court quashed the corrigendum and directed the Corporation to open the technical bids submitted pursuant to the original tender and proceed in accordance with the original bid document.

The present petitioner had not submitted a bid under the original tender between 12 and 27 August 2025. It sought cancellation of the tender and issuance of a fresh tender, or alternatively, reopening of the bid-submission window to permit it to participate.

1. Whether a bidder who did not submit a bid under the original tender before the prescribed deadline could seek reopening or extension of the bid-submission window after the deadline had expired.

2. Whether the petitioner could claim the benefit of the quashing of a corrigendum challenged by another bidder and thereby obtain an opportunity to participate in the tender process.

3. Whether the tender process was required to be annulled and re-invited on the original eligibility criteria.

The Court applied the principle that participation in a tender is governed by the conditions and timelines prescribed in the tender document, and a bidder who fails to submit a bid within the stipulated period cannot ordinarily seek an opportunity to participate after the deadline has expired.

A person who did not challenge an adverse corrigendum and consequently did not participate cannot take advantage of an order obtained by another party quashing that corrigendum.

The Court also applied the principle that judicial relief is ordinarily confined to protecting the rights of the party who properly invoked the Court’s jurisdiction and does not automatically create a fresh right of participation for non-participants.

The earlier decision in Special Civil Application No. 12409 of 2025 operated by quashing the corrigendum and directing the Corporation to proceed with bids already submitted pursuant to the original tender; it did not direct reopening of the tender for new bidders.

The petitioner had an opportunity to submit its bid under the original tender from 12 to 27 August 2025 but admittedly did not do so.

The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to participate during this period was decisive.

Once the corrigendum was issued on 27 August 2025, the petitioner did not challenge it, thereby accepting that it could not participate under the altered eligibility conditions.

The subsequent quashing of the corrigendum in proceedings instituted by another bidder restored the original tender conditions for bids already submitted; it did not revive the expired opportunity to submit new bids or entitle the petitioner to benefit from another party’s litigation.

Since the original bid-submission deadline of 28 August 2025 had expired, the petitioner could not seek reopening of the bid window or cancellation and re-invitation of the tender merely because the corrigendum had later been quashed.

The prayers for annulment and re-invitation of the tender, and alternatively for reopening the bid-submission window, were rejected. The Special Civil Application was dismissed.