Tender eligibility is determined by the bidder's status on the submission deadline; subsequent restorations lack retrospective effect.

The Petitioner, an engineering firm, participated in a tender invited by the Water Resources Department (Respondent No. 2) on 24.12.2025 for the reconstruction of the Bagod Anicut cum Lift Irrigation Scheme

The Petitioner submitted its bid on 14.01.2026, which was also the last date for submission

During technical evaluation, the Petitioner was disqualified because its registration had been downgraded from 'Class-A' to 'Class-B' by an order dated 14.07.2025

Although the High Court set aside the degradation order on 22.01.2026 in a separate proceeding (WPC No. 6221/2025) and the authorities formally restored the Petitioner’s 'Class-A' status on 10.02.2026, the Respondent Department maintained the disqualification via a communication dated 06.03.2026

The Petitioner challenged this disqualification, arguing that the restoration of status should relate back to the bid date and that they had quoted a lower price than the successful bidder (Respondent No. 3)

1. Whether the eligibility of a bidder must be determined based on the status existing on the last date of bid submission or whether subsequent restoration of eligibility can be considered

2. Whether the decision of the respondent authority to disqualify the Petitioner was arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to tender jurisprudence

a bidder's eligibility must be strictly examined with reference to the conditions stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and the bidder's status as of the last date for bid submission

subsequent events occurring after the cut-off date cannot be considered to determine eligibility, and the tendering authority is bound by the NIT terms without the power to relax criteria once the process commences

judicial interference in contractual and tender processes is limited to instances of proven arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural impropriety

The Court observed that the admitted last date for bid submission was 14.01.2026

On this crucial date, the Petitioner’s registration remained downgraded to 'Class-B' pursuant to the order of 14.07.2025

The Court reasoned that the High Court’s subsequent order of 22.01.2026 and the formal restoration order of 10.02.2026 were post-facto developments that did not confer retrospective eligibility for the purpose of the tender

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the setting aside of the degradation order should override the status on the submission date, concluding that the Department acted in strict conformity with the NIT by evaluating the Petitioner’s status as it existed at the cut-off time

Since the Petitioner lacked 'Class-A' registration on 14.01.2026, the technical disqualification was neither arbitrary nor procedurally improper

The Court affirmed that restoration of a contractor's class status after the tender deadline does not entitle them to participate if they were unqualified on the last date of submission

Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the Respondent's decision-making process, the Court declined to interfere with the award of the tender to Respondent No. 3

No costs were ordered