Court Rules Eligibility Conditions in Tender Are Essential and Cannot Be Waived Post Bid Due Date; Subsequent Abeyance of Debarment Does Not Confer Eligibility Retroactively
In a significant judgment dated September 29, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Lucknow) dismissed the writ petition filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T), one of India's leading construction companies, challenging the rejection of its technical bid by the Uttar Pradesh Expressways Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA) for a prestigious infrastructure project.
The dispute arose from UPEIDA's rejection of L&T's bid for the development of the Jewar Airport to Ganga Expressway via Bulandshahar Link Expressway (Package-I) on the ground that L&T was "debarred by the Jal Jeevan Mission, U.P." on the bid due date, September 7, 2026. L&T contended that the debarment had been kept in abeyance by the Jal Jeevan Mission on September 14, 2026, prior to technical evaluation on September 25, 2026, and thus it should have been deemed eligible. L&T also argued that the eligibility clause relating to debarment was superseded by a separate clause requiring declarations regarding catastrophic failure of structures, which it had duly complied with.
After detailed consideration of the Request for Proposal (RFP) conditions, the Court clarified that clause 2.1.18 of the RFP, which explicitly disqualifies any entity barred by Central or State government whose bar subsisted on the bid due date, is an essential and threshold eligibility condition that cannot be waived or cured after the bid due date. The Court emphasized that the bid due date is the sole relevant date for judging eligibility, and the validity period of bids (120 days) under clause 1.2.2 does not alter this cut-off date.
The Court further held that the subsequent order keeping the debarment in abeyance from September 14, 2026, operates prospectively and does not relate back to erase the debarment as on the bid due date. It rejected L&T's contention that the declaration under clause 2.2.2.10 concerning catastrophic structural failures could override the debarment-based ineligibility under clause 2.1.18, as both clauses serve distinct purposes-technical capacity versus fundamental eligibility.
In addition, the Court found that L&T's failure to disclose the subsisting debarment at the time of bidding, and disclosure only after UPEIDA sought clarification, weighed against granting discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition, underscoring that a lower financial bid does not confer any right to participate if eligibility conditions are not met.
This ruling reinforces the principle that tendering authorities have the right to strictly enforce essential eligibility criteria to maintain fairness and integrity in public procurement, and that courts will interfere only in cases of arbitrariness, mala fide, or perversity, none of which were found here.
Bottom Line:
Tender matters - Judicial review - Debarment subsisting on bid due date under express eligibility clause renders bidder ineligible - Subsequent order keeping debarment in abeyance operates prospectively and does not relate back - Such essential eligibility condition cannot be cured or waived after bid due date - Lower financial quote does not create any right in favour of ineligible bidder.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India; Tender Terms and Conditions (clauses 2.1.18, 2.2.2.10, 1.2.2 of the RFP)
Larsen And Toubro Limited v. State of U.P., (All)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990432
