Tendering Authority Best Judge of Eligibility Conditions: Patna High Court

The Hon’ble Patna High Court, in Adyaraj Developers Private Limited v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 7993 of 2025), decided on August 5, 2026, held that a bidder who knowingly participates in a tender process cannot subsequently challenge the eligibility conditions merely because its bid was rejected. The Hon’ble Court further held that courts cannot substitute their view for the tendering authority’s commercial wisdom unless the eligibility condition is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by mala fides.

The dispute arose from three tenders issued by the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited for construction of rail over bridges. The petitioner challenged the requirement prescribing the financial year 2020-21 to 2024-25 for assessing experience, while the annual turnover requirement considered 2019-20 to 2023-24. Corrigenda issued in two of the tenders corrected only the turnover period. The petitioner contended that the different periods were inconsistent with the Standard Bidding Document, which contemplated the ‘last five years’ uniformly, and resulted in rejection of its technical bids.

The petitioner submitted that it had filed a representation dated April 25, 2025 seeking reconsideration of the eligibility condition before participating in the tender and had participated under protest. It contended that it would have satisfied the eligibility requirement if the period of 2019-20 to 2023-24 had been applied. The respondents submitted that the conditions were uniformly applicable to all bidders and that the petitioner, having participated with knowledge of the conditions, could not challenge them after being declared technically non-responsive.

The Hon’ble Court held that participation under protest did not alter the legal position. Relying on R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, the Hon’ble Court observed that a bidder cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the tender conditions while seeking consideration of its bid and subsequently challenging those very conditions after an unfavourable result.

The Hon’ble Court further reiterated, relying on Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, that the employer is the best judge of its tender requirements and judicial review in contractual matters is limited. The Court held that it could not direct the employer to adopt a particular eligibility period merely because another criterion appeared reasonable or would make the petitioner eligible.

The Hon’ble Court found no material demonstrating that the impugned condition was designed to favour a particular bidder or to exclude the petitioner. It further held that the difference between the financial periods prescribed for turnover and experience, by itself, did not establish arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any ground warranting judicial interference and dismissed the writ petition.