Unsuccessful Bidder Who Participates Without Challenging Eligibility Clauses Cannot Subsequently Challenge Tender Terms or Award

The Petitioner, Ramesh Saikia, challenged a tender notice dated 27.02.2026 issued by the Mariani Municipal Board for the renovation/upgradation of Zone-II, Hengul.

The tender documents (RFB) stipulated a mandatory eligibility condition: bidders must have an average annual turnover of at least Rs. 5 crores during the last three financial years ending 31.03.2025.

The Petitioner, admittedly lacking this qualification, participated in the tender anyway.

Following the rejection of his technical bid on eligibility grounds, the Petitioner filed this writ petition to challenge the tender document, the rejection of his bid, and the award of the contract to Respondent No. 8.

1. Whether a bidder, having knowledge of their own ineligibility and participating in a tender without prior protest, can subsequently challenge the legality of the tender clauses or the award of the contract?

2. Whether an ineligible bidder has the locus standi to challenge the selection of a successful bidder?

The Court applied the principle of "approbate and reprobate," as elucidated by the Supreme Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited and Another (2022) 6 SCC 401, which establishes that if a bidder chooses to participate in a tender process with full knowledge of the disqualifying clauses, they cannot challenge those clauses after being declared unsuccessful.

The Court further relied on Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Others (1999) 1 SCC 492, which held that a bidder who does not meet the requisite qualifications cannot be permitted to challenge the acceptance of the bid of an eligible competitor.

The Court observed that the Petitioner admitted to not meeting the turnover threshold of Rs. 5 crores required by the Request for Bids.

Applying the National High Speed Rail Corporation precedent, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner had two choices: either challenge the eligibility clause before participating or abstain from the process.

By choosing to participate despite being ineligible, the Petitioner waived his right to later challenge the validity of the tender terms.

Furthermore, following the principle in Raunaq International, the Court found that because the Petitioner was fundamentally ineligible, he lacked the legal standing to question the Tender Inviting Authority’s decision to award the contract to another party.

The Court ruled that the Petitioner’s failure to meet the requisite qualifications and his voluntary participation in the process precluded him from seeking relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition was dismissed.