An OEM’s authorisation to a bidder does not confer locus to challenge the tender.

The petitioner, an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), issued a Manufacturer’s Authorization Form (MAF) to a bidder who did not succeed in the tender process.

The petitioner challenged the tender process, alleging that the tender conditions had not been strictly followed and that bidders had not been provided an equal opportunity.

The respondents objected that the petitioner had not itself submitted a bid and lacked standing to maintain the petition.

The petitioner relied on Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar and Suresh Kumar Jain v. Lt. Governor to assert that its commercial interest in supplying equipment gave it sufficient locus.

The respondents relied on NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd. and the Division Bench decision in Primatel Fibcom Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Whether an OEM that did not participate in the tender, but issued an MAF to a bidder, has locus to challenge the tender process

Whether the authorities relied on by the petitioner support standing in these circumstances

Under the principles governing writ standing under Article 226, a petitioner must establish a sufficient legal interest in the challenged action; a commercial or economic interest, without more, does not necessarily confer standing.

In NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd., the Supreme Court held that an entity that did not participate in a tender generally cannot challenge the tender outcome or assert rights under its terms, particularly where the tender conditions remain unchallenged.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench’s application of that principle in Primatel Fibcom Ltd., which held that an OEM’s intention to supply equipment to a bidder does not, by itself, confer locus to challenge the tender.

Jasbhai Motibhai Desai requires strict scrutiny of standing in writ proceedings, while Suresh Kumar Jain was distinguished as not governing a third party’s challenge to a tender process.

The petitioner had issued an MAF but had neither submitted a bid nor entered into a contract with the tender-inviting authority.

The MAF was a document required for a third party’s tender submission; it did not make the petitioner a tenderer or give it rights under the tender.

Any arrangement between the petitioner and the bidder could not bind the respondents, and any dispute arising from that arrangement had to be pursued through other remedies.

The bidder to whom the MAF was issued was not before the Court and had not challenged the tender outcome; the petitioner could not assert that bidder’s rights as its own.

Applying NHAI and Primatel Fibcom, the Court held that the petitioner’s status as an OEM and its anticipated commercial interest were insufficient to establish locus.

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