Non-participants lack locus standi to challenge infrastructure tenders where indicative conditions were clarified during pre-bid proceedings.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) issued a tender on September 6, 2025, for the collection and transportation of municipal solid waste in the South, Central, and West Zones.

The Petitioner, a sole proprietorship, raised several pre-bid queries regarding ambiguities in the Draft Concessionaire Agreement (DCA).

While the MCD issued multiple corrigenda, the Petitioner alleged that Corrigendum No. 9 (dated December 4, 2025) exponentially increased the required number of Fixed Compact Transfer Stations (FCTS), thereby artificially inflating project costs and deterring the Petitioner from bidding.

The Petitioner did not submit a bid by the January 5, 2026 deadline.

After the bids were opened, the MCD issued Corrigendum No. 12 (dated February 24, 2026), which "normalized" and reduced the FCTS requirements.

The Petitioner challenged the tender process, claiming the MCD changed the "rules of the game" midway to favor specific entities.

Whether the Petitioner, an ineligible sole proprietorship that failed to participate in the bidding process, has the locus standi to challenge the award of the tender.

Whether the MCD’s issuance of corrigenda regarding the normalization of FCTS requirements after bid submission constituted an arbitrary change to the essential conditions of the tender.

The Court relied on the principle that the author of a tender document is the best person to interpret its requirements, and constitutional courts should not substitute their interpretation unless the process is mala fide [Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corp.].

It applied the doctrine that judicial review in commercial contracts is limited to protecting public interest rather than private grievances, and courts must exercise extreme caution before staying infrastructure projects of public importance [National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd.; Tata Motors Ltd. v. BEST].

Furthermore, the court noted that a writ court should refrain from imposing its own decisions over an employer’s technical or economic assessments [N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod K. Jain].

The Court found the Petitioner’s claims to be based on a "misreading" of the tender documents.

It noted that Clause 3.4.1(e) of the RFP explicitly required bidders to submit an Initial Implementation and Operational Plan (IIOP), which the MCD would then use to "normalize" the quantity of machinery and FCTS sites.

Pre-bid clarifications specifically informed the Petitioner that the FCTS numbers provided in the tender were "purely indicative" and that bidders were expected to make their own assessments.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that Corrigendum No. 12 (dated February 24, 2026) was not an arbitrary change but a pre-disclosed procedural step to finalize the "normalized" numbers based on technical evaluations.

The Court further observed that the Petitioner, as a sole proprietorship, was ineligible under the tender terms and, having "missed the bus" by not submitting a bid, could not now challenge the process as a non-participant.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, concluding that the MCD's normalization process was transparent and consistent with the tender’s original framework.

The Court ruled that the Petitioner had no locus standi and failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or mala fides in the respondent's actions.

The Writ Petition and all pending applications were dismissed.