No Judicial Intervention for Strangers Seeking Tender Clause Relaxation: Manipur HC

The Manipur High Court has slammed the door on prospective bidders attempting to bypass mandatory tender conditions through writ jurisdiction, ruling that a party who fails to participate in mandatory pre-bid proceedings is a 'stranger' to the process and lacks locus standi to seek judicial relaxation of essential criteria.

In a decisive order, a bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma refused to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Constitution of India to assist a firm that missed mandatory site visits and pre-bid meetings, emphasizing that the tender floating authority remains the best judge of its own requirements.

Key Takeaways

Locus Standi of Non-Participants

A party that fails to comply with mandatory preliminary tender requirements, such as site visits, is considered a 'stranger' to the NIT and cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to modify tender terms.

Primacy of Tender Floating Authority

The authority floating the tender is the best person to interpret and modify its terms; courts will not interfere unless there is patent illegality or procedural impropriety.

Mandatory Pre-Bid Compliance

Deadlines for clarifications and site inspections are essential terms of the contract process, and missing these stages precludes a bidder from later challenging the technical criteria.

Judicial Restraint in Commercial Transactions

The Court highlighted the well-settled principles of judicial review in contractual matters, noting that the scope is limited to examining the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. Drawing upon the precedent in Tata Cellular, the Court reiterated that the state must be free to enter commercial transactions without undue interference, provided its actions are fair and non-arbitrary.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the present case, the petitioner is yet to submit his bid and he is a stranger in the NIT and the writ petition at the instance of a stranger claiming for relaxation in the mandatory provision of NIT and for giving fresh opportunity of having another round of site visit and attending in pre-bid meeting, cannot be entertained; as the same would change in the essential terms of tender document."

The Court further emphasized that since the petitioner did not participate in the mandatory site visit and pre-bid meeting, any submission made by them would likely be technically non-responsive. Referring to Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ( "(2013) 4 SCC 465": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 440), the Court noted that a stranger cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others regarding posts or property.

Ratio

A petitioner who has not complied with the mandatory preliminary requirements of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), such as site visits and pre-bid meetings, qualifies as a 'stranger' to the tender process and lacks the locus standi to seek a Writ of Mandamus for the relaxation of essential technical criteria. In the absence of patent illegality or procedural impropriety, the High Court will exercise judicial restraint and refrain from interfering with the essential terms of a commercial tender.

Background

The dispute arose when M/s Khagemba Transmission and Construction challenged the terms of an NIT dated 14.09.2026 issued by the Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL) for the construction of a 132KV transmission line. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to relax technical experience requirements specifically asking that a 95% completion certificate be accepted instead of full completion and requested a fresh opportunity for a mandatory site visit and pre-bid meeting which they had missed.

MSPCL, represented by senior counsel, argued that the site visit on 22.09.2026 and pre-bid meeting on 23.09.2026 were mandatory under the Invitation for Bids (IFB). They contended that the petitioner’s representations were submitted only after these deadlines had passed. The Court found no evidence of impropriety or illegality in the MSPCL's process and, relying on the principles in Micky Traders vs. L.R.Y. Labour Contractor & Ors. ( "2026 INSC 1025": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 7025), dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the tender authority’s interpretation of its own clauses must be respected.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP(C) No. 753 of 2026 with MC(WP(C)) No. 778 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MNHC:227
Case Title: M/s Khagemba Transmission and Construction v. The State of Manipur & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. L. Sevananda Sharma, Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Ch. Sundari, GA; Mr. N. Kumarjit, Senior Counsel; Mr. N. Zequeson, Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAN) 95