Court says bidder cannot challenge tender terms after participating in process; different financial periods for turnover and experience not shown to be arbitrary or mala fide
Patna, Aug. 5, 2026: The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Adyaraj Developers Private Limited challenging the tender conditions of the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited (BRPNNL) for construction of rail over bridges, holding that courts should exercise limited judicial review in tender matters and should not rewrite eligibility criteria fixed by the tendering authority.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma ruled that the petitioner, having knowingly participated in the tender process, could not later assail the same tender conditions after its technical bid was rejected. The Court applied the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, observing that a bidder cannot “blow hot and cold” by accepting the tender terms to compete and then challenging them after an unfavourable outcome.
The dispute arose from NIT No. BRPNNL/MZF/C029/317 dated March 17, 2025, along with two other related tenders. The petitioner argued that the tender conditions were arbitrary because the period prescribed for assessing experience of completion of similar works was 2020-21 to 2024-25, while the period for annual financial turnover was 2019-20 to 2023-24. According to the petitioner, this inconsistency violated Article 14 of the Constitution and was contrary to the Standard Bidding Document, which allegedly contemplated a uniform “last five years” criterion.
The Court, however, rejected the challenge. It held that the tendering authority is the best judge of its own requirements and that judicial review in such matters is confined to examining whether the process is arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, or manifestly irrational. Citing Supreme Court precedents including Michigan Rubber, Afcons Infrastructure, Silppi Constructions, and N.G. Projects, the Bench reiterated that courts cannot substitute their own view for that of the employer merely because another eligibility criterion might also appear reasonable.
On the petitioner’s argument that the different financial periods were inconsistent and unjustified, the Court said there was nothing on record to show that the condition was tailor-made to favour any bidder or to exclude the petitioner alone. The Bench noted that the condition applied uniformly to all participants and that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any mala fide intent, hostile discrimination, or public interest violation.
The Court also observed that even if the petitioner believed it would have qualified under a different financial period, that alone did not entitle it to seek judicial interference. The judgment emphasized that the scope of writ jurisdiction does not extend to rewriting tender conditions or directing the State to adopt a particular eligibility standard simply because a bidder considers it more suitable.
Since the petitioner failed on both issues—its challenge after participation and its attack on the tender’s eligibility criteria—the writ petition was dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Bottom Line :
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining whether the process is arbitrary, mala fide, or manifestly perverse. The tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements, and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with tender conditions unless they are demonstrated to be unreasonable or discriminatory.
Statutory provision(s): Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Adyaraj Developers Private Limited v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2954258
