Belated challenge to tender conditions after bid rejection and award is barred by delay.

The petitioner, a joint venture, participated in two tenders issued by the National Capital Region Transport Corporation Limited for shifting/modification of HVPNL transmission lines relating to Namo Bharat corridors—one concerning the Cyber City–IFFCO Chowk, Gurugram alignment and the other concerning the Delhi–Panipat–Karnal corridor.

Clause 2.4.2(d) of the tender required the lead partner of a joint venture to possess an “A” Class/EHT Electrical Contractor Licence issued by the Government of Haryana.

The petitioner possessed relevant licences from Delhi, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, while its joint-venture partner possessed an “A” Class licence issued by Haryana; however, the lead partner did not possess the Haryana licence specifically required by the tender.

The petitioner challenged the restrictive clause and the communications dated 13 May 2026 and 4 August 2026 declaring its technical bids non-responsive.

The petitions were filed after the relevant tender stages had progressed; in one tender the technical bids had been opened, and in the other the financial bids had been opened and the Letter of Acceptance had been issued.

Whether the petitioner could challenge Clause 2.4.2(d) of the tender, requiring the lead partner of a joint venture to possess an “A” Class/EHT Electrical Contractor Licence issued by the Government of Haryana, after participating in the tender with knowledge of the clause.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the declarations that its technical bids were non-responsive and seek reconsideration or re-evaluation of its bids after the tender process had substantially progressed.

Whether the subsequent opening of the financial bids constituted a fresh cause of action enabling the petitioner to maintain the writ petitions at that stage.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review of tender conditions and tender decisions, including the requirement that a bidder who is aware of a tender stipulation must challenge it promptly and cannot ordinarily participate in the process, await an adverse result, and then question the condition.

The Court also applied the doctrine of delay and laches, holding that an unexplained delay in challenging a known eligibility condition and an adverse technical evaluation disentitles a petitioner to discretionary writ relief.

No specific statute or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment; the decision rested on these principles as applied to the tender process.

The Court found that the petitioner knew of the Haryana-licence requirement at least by 6 February 2026, when the relevant stipulation was incorporated into the bid document, and admittedly did not possess the required licence.

Although the petitioner participated in the tender and made a representation against the clause, it did not approach the Court promptly after learning of the condition, after the technical bids were declared non-responsive on 13 May 2026, or even thereafter within a reasonable time.

The Court rejected the argument that the opening of the financial bids created a new cause of action, holding that the petitioner’s grievance substantially arose when it became aware of the restrictive condition and when its technical bids were rejected.

The advanced stage of the tender process further weighed against interference, particularly since the financial bids had been opened and an LOA had been issued in one tender.

The subsequent opening of the financial bids did not revive or create a fresh cause of action.

Finding no ground to interfere with the respondent’s action, the Court dismissed both writ petitions and all pending applications.