Bidder Has No Enforceable Right To Challenge Tender Disqualification After Expiry Of Bid Validity Period: Patna High Court
Rushil Batra
14 May 2026 3:10 PM IST
The Patna High Court has held that once the validity period of a tender bid expires, no enforceable or workable relief can be granted to a bidder in a challenge to technical disqualification, even if allegations of wrongful rejection are raised.
The Court observed that after expiry of the bid validity period, adjudication on the merits of the disqualification becomes “largely academic.”
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the petitioner's technical disqualification from a tender floated through the Government eMarketplace portal for Optical Fibre Cable laying and associated works in Patna Division.
"The bid validity period defines the time frame during which the bid remains open for acceptance and enforceable in law. 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 bench said.
The petitioner-company contended that it had submitted all requisite documents, including experience certificates and relevant contracts/work orders, and that its disqualification on the ground of non-submission of supporting work orders was arbitrary and reflected non-application of mind. Reliance was placed on Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works to argue that hyper-technical rejection in tender matters is amenable to judicial review.
The respondents, however, argued that the petitioner had failed to upload mandatory supporting work orders corresponding to experience certificates within the stipulated timeline. It was further submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous since the bid validity period of 150 days from 21.02.2025 had already expired in July 2025.
Upon examining the records, the High Court noted that the Notice Inviting Tender specifically required bidders to furnish copies of relevant contracts/work orders along with experience certificates for each financial year. While the petitioner had uploaded certain agreements and certificates, the corresponding work orders (an essential eligibility requirement) had not been submitted within time.
The Bench further observed that the petitioner's representations against disqualification had in fact been considered by the authorities, who called for reports from the concerned department before affirming that the bid was non-responsive to mandatory tender conditions. The Court therefore found no arbitrariness or non-application of mind in the decision-making process.
Significantly, the Court emphasised that the bid validity period had already expired and so the bid lost its legal sanctity thereby no enforceable right survives in favour of the bidder.
The Court held that even assuming the petitioner's challenge to the technical disqualification had merit, no effective relief could now be granted since the tender itself had lost its operative life. Any direction for reconsideration of the bid or revival of participation in the tender process would be “impracticable and legally untenable.”
Distinguishing the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, the Bench observed that the real issue was no longer interpretation of tender conditions, but the survivability of the writ petition itself after lapse of the bid validity period. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where the relief sought has become incapable of being granted in practical terms.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: M/S Trijal Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12740 of 2025.
Appearance: Mr. Madhav Raj for Petitioner. Mr. Arvind Kumar for Union of India. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, and ASG for the Respondents.
