Delhi HC: Tender Challenges Maintainable Only by Participants or Timely Objectors

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition in the case of Rotoffset Corporation v. Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., (W.P.(C) 11016/2025), dated August 19, 2025, holding that a party that neither participates in a tender nor challenges its terms at the appropriate stage lacks locus standi to assail the procurement once the contract has been awarded and execution has commenced.

The dispute arose out of a contract awarded in 2022 to the petitioner, Rotoffset Corporation, a Micro and Small Medium Eenterprise (MSME) with long-standing experience in printing technology, for the supply of a specialised excise adhesive label printing machine valued at ₹17.5 crores. The petitioner substantially progressed with the project, but in January 2025 the contract was terminated even though an extension until March 2025 had previously been granted. Shortly after this cancellation, the procuring authority issued new tenders dated March 7, 2025, on the basis of a Proprietary Article Certificate (PAC). The PAC tenders were issued in favour of a foreign entity said to be the successor of Rotatek S.A., the original equipment manufacturer, which had been liquidated years earlier. Aggrieved, a writ was instituted by the petitioner on July 3, 2025, after the new contract had already been awarded and performance had begun.

The Court’s relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 243, dated July 13, 2018, held that only those entities that actually participate in a tender process, or that challenge its conditions at the appropriate stage, are entitled to subsequently question its outcome. A party that abstains from bidding cannot later seek to assail the result once the contract has been awarded, especially where the validity of the tender document was never challenged at the relevant time, that is, before the closing of bids or at least prior to evaluation. The Court underscored that this principle is not merely procedural but arises from the fundamental objectives of public tenders: to ensure transparency, maintain competition, afford equal opportunity to all eligible participants, and ultimately secure value for public money.

This judgment reinforces judicial restraint in interfering with tenders where the challenge is not raised at the proper stage.