Ineligible bidders cannot challenge tender conditions or selection of successful bidders after participating in the tender process.

The Petitioner challenged a tender notice dated 27.02.2026 issued by the Mariani Municipal Board for road renovation works

The Request for Bids (RFB) stipulated an eligibility condition requiring a minimum average annual turnover of Rs. 5 crores over the last three financial years

The Petitioner, admittedly lacking this qualification, participated in the tender process anyway

Following the rejection of his technical bid on eligibility grounds, the Petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court seeking to quash the tender document and the decision to award the contract to Respondent No. 8

1. Whether an intending bidder, having participated in a tender process with full knowledge of its eligibility criteria, can subsequently challenge those criteria upon being disqualified

2. Whether an ineligible bidder has the locus standi to challenge the acceptance of a bid submitted by another bidder

The Court applied the principle of waiver and estoppel in tender matters as articulated in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited vs. Montecarlo Limited and Another (2022) 6 SCC 401, which establishes that a bidder cannot challenge tender clauses after participating in the process with knowledge of said clauses

The Court relied on the doctrine established in Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Others (1999) 1 SCC 492, which holds that an ineligible bidder lacks the standing to challenge the selection of an eligible competitor

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner was aware of the Rs. 5 crore turnover requirement from the outset but chose to participate without protest

Citing the National High Speed Rail precedent, the Court noted that an aggrieved party must challenge a tender clause before participating, or at least challenge it while participating, rather than waiting until their bid is rejected

Since the Petitioner admittedly did not meet the financial eligibility criteria, the Court found that he was an "ineligible bidder"

Applying the rule from Raunaq International, the Court determined that such a bidder cannot seek judicial review of the settlement of the contract in favor of another party

The Court concluded that the Petitioner's conduct precluded him from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226

The Court answered the issues in the negative and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the Petitioner's technical bid and the subsequent award of the contract