Ineligible bidder cannot challenge tender conditions after participating and failing to meet essential eligibility criteria.

The Petitioner, a security manpower service provider, challenged a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 01.04.2026 (Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7397141) floated by Respondent No. 2

The Petitioner contended that the tender wrongly categorized Security Supervisors as "Semi-Skilled" and Unarmed Guards as "Unskilled," allegedly in violation of a Ministry of Labour Employment notification dated 19.01.2017

Procedurally, the Petitioner participated in the bidding process but its technical bid was rejected because it failed to deposit the mandatory Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) within the prescribed time

1. Whether the categorization of security personnel in the tender conditions was arbitrary and contrary to the Central Government notification dated 19.01.2017

2. Whether a bidder who failed to comply with essential tender conditions (deposit of EMD) and was subsequently disqualified can maintain a challenge against the tender's terms

The Court applied the doctrine of limited judicial review in contractual and tender matters, establishing that interference is only warranted if the authority's action is wholly arbitrary, mala fide, or based on extraneous considerations

It further relied on the principle of estoppel/acquiescence, which posits that a party who voluntarily participates in a tender process with full knowledge of its terms cannot later challenge those very conditions after being rendered unsuccessful or ineligible

The Court observed that while the Petitioner relied on the 19.01.2017 notification to dispute the skill categorization, such administrative and operational requirements fall within the primary domain of the tendering authority

The Court found the Petitioner’s position legally untenable because it had "consciously participated" in the process without initial protest

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner failed to meet an "essential condition" (the EMD deposit), it had no locus to "turn around" and stall the process after its disqualification

Furthermore, the Court noted that multiple other agencies had already participated and the process had substantially progressed; thus, judicial interference would be detrimental to public interest and the procurement process

The Court held that a participant who takes a chance in a tender and is found ineligible due to its own default cannot challenge the tender conditions

The Writ Petition and all pending applications were dismissed