Non-participants cannot challenge concluded tender processes absent arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrational conditions.

The petitioner, a Kolkata-based partnership firm engaged in dismantling vessels and dealing in scrap, challenged Auction No. MSTC/GHY/Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited/5/Guwahati/25-26/25321 dated 07.08.2025 concerning demolition and disposal of the Cachar Paper Mill’s plant, machinery and structures.

The petitioner claimed that the auction notice and catalogue were published only on MSTC Limited’s e-auction portal and not on the State Public Procurement Portal or in national newspapers, thereby depriving it of an opportunity to participate.

The petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.10.2025, expressing willingness to participate and indicating a bid of ₹120 crores, but received no response.

The petitioner approached the High Court after the auction process had substantially concluded, while the final award remained pending due to interim proceedings in a connected matter.

Whether publication of the auction notice only on MSTC Limited’s e-auction portal, without publication on the State Public Procurement Portal or in national newspapers, rendered the tender process invalid or deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to participate?

Whether the pre-qualification criteria and other tender conditions were arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to the object and scope of the demolition and disposal contract?

Whether a non-participant who approached the Court after completion of the bidding process could challenge the tender process or seek permission to participate at that stage?

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review of State contracts and tender processes under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Under Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, judicial review examines the decision-making process rather than substituting the Court’s decision for that of the administrative authority; tender conditions ordinarily remain within the procuring authority’s discretion, subject to arbitrariness, mala fides, bias, or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Under M/s Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, the State has latitude in fixing tender conditions and eligibility requirements, and interference is warranted only where the conditions or award are arbitrary, mala fide, or lack a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

The Court also relied on National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 243, which holds that an entity that did not participate in the tender process ordinarily cannot challenge the tender conditions or claim rights arising from the process after its conclusion.

The Court held that publication through MSTC, a Government of India enterprise having a national e-auction portal, constituted sufficient publicity in the circumstances.

The participation of 20 bidders from across the country supported the respondents’ contention that the auction had achieved substantial reach.

The petitioner itself had been registered on the MSTC portal and had used it for government contracts; therefore, its failure to notice the auction was attributed to its lack of vigilance rather than inadequate publicity by the respondents.

As to the eligibility criteria, the Court emphasised that the formulation of turnover, experience and safety-related requirements falls primarily within the tendering authority’s commercial and administrative judgment.

Applying the restraint mandated by Tata Cellular and Michigan Rubber, the Court found no sufficient basis to interfere, particularly because the petitioner had not participated in the auction and approached the Court only after completion of the bidding process.

Relying on NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway, the Court held that the petitioner could not seek to enter the process retrospectively or disrupt the rights of bidders who had participated on the basis of the published conditions.

It held that the auction notice published through MSTC was not shown to suffer from inadequate publicity, and that the petitioner’s non-participation resulted from its own lack of vigilance.

The challenge to the pre-qualification criteria and tender conditions was also rejected in view of the tendering authority’s discretion, the absence of demonstrated arbitrariness or mala fides, and the petitioner’s status as a non-participant approaching the Court after conclusion of the auction process.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.