Belated Tender Objections and Material Suppression Bars Discretionary Relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Petitioner challenged the award of a tender for the construction of Zila Panchayat Bhawan, Distt- Gaurela Pendra Marwahi to Respondent No. 4 (L-1 bidder).

The E-N.I.T. was issued on 24.02.2026, and technical bids were opened on 17.03.2026.

Clause 3 of the N.I.T. required any objections regarding technical eligibility to be submitted within three days of opening the technical bid.

The Petitioner failed to object within this window, instead submitting objections on 09.04.2026, one day after the financial bids were opened and Respondent No. 4 was declared the winner.

Despite the delay, an enquiry committee examined the objections on 15.04.2026 and found no merit.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the award and for a re-invitation of the tender.

1. Whether the tender process was vitiated by arbitrariness or procedural lapses despite the Petitioner’s failure to adhere to the time-bound objection clause.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given the suppression of the enquiry committee’s covering memo.

The Court applied the principles governing public procurement and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that bidders are bound by the terms and conditions of the E-N.I.T.

The court relied on the equitable principle that a petitioner seeking discretionary relief must come with "clean hands" and full disclosure of material facts.

The court upheld the doctrine that judicial interference in contractual matters is restricted to cases demonstrating patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural illegality.

The Court observed that the Petitioner fundamentally breached the tender terms by failing to submit technical objections within the mandatory three-day window following the opening of the technical bid on 17.03.2026.

The Court reasoned that objections raised only after the financial result was declared (09.04.2026) were a belated "afterthought" intended to disrupt a concluded process.

The Court noted that the Respondent authorities acted fairly by conducting a voluntary enquiry even after the deadline; however, the Petitioner suppressed the final covering memo dated 17.04.2026 from the Court.

This suppression of material facts was viewed as a tactical attempt to present a distorted narrative of non-consideration by the authorities.

Since no evidence of mala fides or procedural violation was presented, the decision-making process was found to be fair and transparent.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, ruling that the decision-making process was valid and that the Petitioner was disentitled from seeking equitable relief.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were ordered.