Where other bidders have met every tender condition, been found technically compliant, and stand at an advanced stage of price-bid evaluation, can a belated challenge by non-participating bidders justify judicial interference with the procurement process?

No. Compliant bidders who have gone through rigorous evaluation and stand at the verge of final evaluation of their price bids have themselves acquired certain rights and interests; to stall the process and afford judicial indulgence to appellants who approached the Court at their own convenience, after conscious inaction, would be unfair and unjust — more so where, as here, the procurement was intended for the benefit of a very large number of schoolchildren, a major portion of which stood halted by the litigation.

Constitution of India — Article 226 — public procurement — tender eligibility conditions — delay and laches — delay and laches — accrual of challenge — conscious inaction — Held: A challenge to a tender condition or eligibility criterion accrues on the very day the condition is published, and an entity that considers itself excluded must at the earliest raise the grievance before the Court; conscious inaction that allows the process to advance is not excused by later representations. (¶23–25) delay in public procurement — not measured by calendar days alone — Held further: Delay in public procurement is assessed not merely by counting days but by reference to what has occurred during those days, whose interests have arisen, and what public consequences would follow from unsettling an advanced, multi-stage process of significant public interest. (¶19, ¶21) Vinishma Technologies distinguished — operational v. geographical exclusion — Held further: A clause requiring bidders to maintain an office and warehouse in Delhi, incorporated to ensure prompt installation and servicing of equipment for government schools and open to any bidder able to demonstrate the required operational infrastructure, is operational rather than geographical in nature and stands apart from a State-specific past-performance restriction earlier struck down as an artificial, exclusionary barrier. (¶29–¶34) acquired rights of compliant bidders — public interest — appeals dismissed — Held further: Bidders who cleared every stage of evaluation acquire rights and interests that a belated, non-bona fide challenge cannot be permitted to disturb, particularly where the procurement serves schoolchildren; both Appeals were accordingly dismissed, leaving the validity of the disputed clause open for an appropriate case. (¶26–27, ¶35–37)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/S. UTKARSH ENTERPRISES & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India