Successful tenderers who fail to act unconditionally on letters of acceptance cannot challenge subsequent tender notifications.

The petitioners had been declared successful tenderers under an earlier tender notification dated 30 July 2025.

The respondents issued letters of acceptance on 4 September 2026, requiring the petitioners to complete specified steps, including signing and returning the letters, furnishing security, and executing agreements.

The petitioners responded with qualifications and did not take further steps under the letters of acceptance.

The respondents subsequently issued fresh tender notifications dated 19 September 2026 for solid-waste-management work.

The petitioners challenged those notifications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioners, having failed to give an unqualified response and proceed under the letters of acceptance issued in their favour, could challenge the subsequent tender notifications.

2. Whether the petitioners could participate in the tender proceedings under the impugned notifications.

The Court’s reasoning rested on the petitioners’ conduct following the letters of acceptance: in the absence of an unqualified response and further steps in accordance with those letters, the petitioners were not entitled to challenge the subsequent tender notifications.

Although the petitions invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court cited no specific statutory provision, precedent, or broader tender-law doctrine in reaching its decision.

The Court noted that the letters of acceptance called upon the petitioners to complete specified contractual and procedural requirements, but the petitioners responded with qualifications and did not proceed further.

Their stated apprehensions concerning a Government Order forming a sub-committee to review awarded tenders did not alter the consequence of their failure to act under the letters of acceptance.

On that basis, the Court held that they could not challenge the later tender notifications.

It recorded the Advocate General’s submission that the respondents had no objection to the petitioners participating in the impugned tender proceedings and left it open to them to do so.