Patna High Court Declines Interference in BSNL Tender Disqualification Matter

The Hon’ble Patna High Court, in M/s Trijal Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12740 of 2025, order dated April 28, 2026) dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner’s technical disqualification from a tender floated through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal for Optical Fiber Cable (OFC) laying and associated works in Patna Division. The Hon’ble Patna High Court held that where a bidder has been disqualified for non-compliance with mandatory tender conditions and the bid validity period has subsequently expired, no effective or enforceable relief can ordinarily be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The dispute arose from Bid. No. GEM/2025/B/5878504 dated January 31, 2025, floated by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for execution of OFC laying and associated works. The petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted its bid along with supporting documents, including experience certificates and agreements. However, upon evaluation of the technical bids, the petitioner was disqualified on the ground that copies of relevant contracts/work orders corresponding to the experience certificates for each financial year had not been uploaded as required under the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).

Aggrieved by the disqualification, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Patna High Court contending that all requisite documents had been duly furnished and that the rejection of its technical bid was arbitrary and reflective of non-application of mind. Reliance was placed upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007 14 SCC 517 dated December 11, 2006) and Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works (1991 3 SCC 273 dated May 06, 1991) to contend that hyper-technical rejection of bids is amenable to judicial review.

Per contra, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had failed to upload the mandatory supporting work orders corresponding to the experience certificates within the stipulated timeline under the NIT conditions. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s representations had been duly considered by the competent authority and, upon verification, the bid was found to be non-responsive to the mandatory tender requirements. The respondents additionally contended that the writ petition had become infructuous since the bid validity period of 150 days from February 21, 2025, had already expired in July 2025.

Before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, the principal issue for consideration was whether any interference was warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction where the bid validity period had already lapsed and the tender process itself had lost its operative life.

Upon examining the record, the Hon’ble Patna High Court observed that the NIT specifically required bidders to furnish copies of relevant contracts/work orders along with supporting experience certificates for each financial year. The Hon’ble Patna High Court noted that although the petitioner had uploaded certain agreements and experience certificates, the corresponding work orders constituting an essential eligibility requirement had not been submitted within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Patna High Court found no arbitrariness or non-application of mind in the decision-making process.

The Hon’ble Patna High Court attached significant importance to the expiry of the bid validity period and observed that the validity period defines the timeframe during which a bid remains open for acceptance and enforceable in law. It held that upon expiry of the said period, the bid loses its legal sanctity, and no vested or enforceable right survives in favour of the bidder. The Hon’ble Patna High Court further held that even assuming the petitioner’s challenge to the technical disqualification had merit, no effective relief could now be granted since any direction for reconsideration of the bid or revival of participation in the tender process would be impracticable and legally untenable.

Reiterating the settled principle that writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised where the relief sought has become incapable of being granted in practical terms, the Hon’ble Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition.