Courts will not interfere with an ongoing tender where a bidder fails an express eligibility criterion.

The petitioner challenged the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board’s communication dated 21 September 2026 and the RFP dated 30 July 2026 concerning the Bhopal Collectorate re-densification project.

The Board refused to consider the petitioner’s bid under the special eligibility criterion in Clause 19 of the Bid Summary, relying on a 9 February 2024 communication concerning a two-year delay in the petitioner’s Rewa Government Printing Press project and a penalty of ₹7.30 lakh.

The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable, at least in part, to the employer and that the decision was predetermined, followed only by an ineffective post-decisional hearing.

It also contended that the decision could have a blacklisting effect without notice.

1. Whether the Board was justified in disqualifying the petitioner under Clause 19 of the Bid Summary on the basis of the recorded two-year delay and penalty in the Rewa project

2. Whether the petitioner’s claims of employer-attributable delay, denial of a meaningful hearing, or a blacklisting consequence warranted interference under Article 226

Article 226 permits judicial review of administrative and tender decisions, but the Court treated the tender process as contractual and considered that submission of a bid, by itself, creates no right to advance in the bidding process.

Under Clause 19 of the Bid Summary, a bidder is disqualified if it has completed an MPHIDB project with a delay of more than one year attributable to the bidder.

The Court also noted that the tender document provided for dispute resolution, including arbitration, under Clause 21 of Section 1 of the Draft Concession-cum-Development Agreement.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The record included the Executive Engineer’s communication attributing the two-year delay in the Rewa project to the petitioner and imposing a penalty, as well as the petitioner’s subsequent correspondence concerning that penalty.

On that material, the Court found that the petitioner did not meet Clause 19’s eligibility requirement.

The petitioner’s contention that the delay was actually attributable to the employer could not be determined in this petition because the Rewa communication had not been challenged and no appropriate forum had adjudicated attribution of the delay.

The alleged blacklisting consequence was unsupported by the impugned communication.

Given the contractual nature of the tender, the absence of an established right to proceed in the bidding process, and the public importance and time-bound nature of the project, the Court declined to interfere with the ongoing tender process.

It dismissed the writ petition.