Non-participating bidders cannot belatedly challenge tender conditions after the auction process concludes.

Respondent No. 1, Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (AIDC), through MSTC Ltd., issued Auction No. MSTC/GHY/Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited/5/Guwahati/25-26/25321 for demolition, disposal and clearing of the plant, machinery and structures of the defunct Cachar Paper Mill.

The auction catalogue prescribed, inter alia, possession of an OHSAS/ISO 45001:2018/OHSMS safety certificate as a pre-qualification requirement.

The petitioners claimed extensive experience and financial capacity but admitted that they did not possess the required certificate.

On 3 September 2025, after the query line had closed at 5:00 p.m., they requested permission to participate on the basis that the dismantling work would be undertaken through a contractor holding the requisite certificate; the representation was sent at 5:27 p.m. and remained unanswered.

The petitioners did not participate in the auction.

After learning that the auction process had not yet resulted in an allotment and that another bidder had challenged the process, they filed the present writ petition on 1 December 2025, seeking quashing of the OHSAS requirement and cancellation of the entire auction process.

AIDC opposed the petition on the grounds of delay, non-participation, waiver/fence-sitting and the reasonableness of the safety-related eligibility condition.

Whether a non-participant in a completed auction process could belatedly challenge the validity of the pre-qualification requirement and other tender conditions.

Whether the requirement of an OHSAS/ISO 45001:2018/OHSMS safety certificate was arbitrary, unreasonable, tailor-made or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Whether the entire auction process was liable to be set aside and a fresh auction directed.

The Court relied on the principle that judicial review of government contracts and tender conditions is limited.

In National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 243, the Supreme Court held that a person who did not participate in the tender process cannot, ordinarily, challenge the tender documents or claim rights arising from them.

Under M/s Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, the State must act fairly, reasonably and without arbitrariness, but courts must accord substantial latitude to the executive in prescribing tender qualifications; preconditions may be imposed to ensure the contractor’s capacity and resources, and there is no fundamental right to transact business with the Government.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 further establishes that the court reviews the decision-making process, not the merits of the administrative decision, and should interfere only for arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or Wednesbury unreasonableness.

The petitioners relied on Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119, concerning the level-playing-field requirement and the impermissibility of tender conditions that unjustifiably exclude otherwise competent bidders.

The Court found that the petitioners admittedly lacked the prescribed safety certification and never submitted a bid.

Their representation was made only after the stipulated query deadline and sought an exemption from an express eligibility condition, coupled with an assurance that a certified contractor would be engaged.

Applying NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway, the Court held that the petitioners, having remained outside the auction process, could not acquire standing to challenge the conditions or seek to unsettle the rights of bidders who participated on the stated terms.

The Court also applied the deferential standards in Michigan Rubber and Tata Cellular, holding that the safety certification requirement was connected with the hazardous nature of demolition and dismantling work, applied uniformly to bidders, and was not shown to be mala fide, arbitrary or tailor-made.

The petition was therefore viewed as a belated attempt to obtain a fresh opportunity after the petitioners chose not to participate.

It held that the petitioners, being non-participants who approached the Court belatedly, could not challenge the auction’s pre-qualification conditions or seek cancellation of the completed process.

The requirement relating to OHSAS/ISO 45001:2018/OHSMS certification was not invalidated.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.