The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has reaffirmed the principle that tender conditions, particularly those prohibiting fractional quotations, must be strictly adhered to by bidders. In a recent judgment, the Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a financial bid, holding that the petitioner's quotation of service charges in fractional terms (3.85%) violated a mandatory tender condition, rendering the bid non-responsive and liable for rejection. The judgment underscores the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and the primacy of the tendering authority's interpretation of its own conditions.
Case Details
Assort 1 Corp Services Limited v. Amravati Municipal Corporation & Ors.
2026:BHC-NAG:8834-DB
Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Date
14 July 2026
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 4886 of 2026
Bench
Urmila Joshi Phalke, J., Nivedita P. Mehta, J.
Counsel
Pet: Shri J.T. Gilda, Senior Advocate, Shri Dipankar Kamble, Advocate
Res: Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate (for respondent no.1), Shri M.M. Sudame, Senior Advocate (for respondent no.2), Shri Ibrahim Fidvi, Advocate (for respondent no.2)
Frequently Asked Questions
Clause 15 expressly prohibits bidders from quoting service charges/consideration in fractional amounts. The Court held that this prohibition applies irrespective of whether the fraction is in monetary value or percentage, as the clause is unambiguous and mandatory.
No. The Court held that a bidder who voluntarily participates in a tender process without challenging its conditions is estopped from assailing those conditions post-rejection. This principle is based on acquiescence and estoppel, as reiterated in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (2016).
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process, not the merits of the commercial decision. Courts will not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, irrational, or perverse. The tendering authority’s interpretation of its own conditions prevails unless it is patently unreasonable, as held in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 11).
No. The Court held that Office Memoranda or government circulars (e.g., prescribing minimum service charges) do not override express tender conditions. Bidders cannot invoke external guidelines to dilute or bypass mandatory tender clauses.
The Court held that clarifications submitted after the bid submission deadline cannot cure defects in the original bid. The petitioner’s working sheet, which admitted fractional quotation (3.85%), was not part of the original bid and could not alter its non-responsive nature.
