- within Government and Public Sector topic(s)
- with readers working within the Media & Information industries
- within Law Department Performance topic(s)
On 11.02.2026, the Bombay High Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by Garware Technical Fibres Ltd. (“GTFL”) and quashed the decision of City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (“CIDCO”) to re-qualify a bidder who was earlier disqualified for not meeting a mandatory eligibility criteria under the Bid.
While allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court, amongst others, held that (i) the terms of the Bid did not permit CIDCO to revisit its earlier decision of disqualifying a bidder; and (ii) CIDCO’s actions of re-qualifying an ineligible bidder cannot be justified on the grounds of ensuring wider participation and procurement of a better price in the Bid.
The High Court emphasised that public interest requires a tendering authority to act strictly within the framework of the Bid conditions. A public body such as CIDCO cannot conduct a bidding process in an arbitrary manner.
Accordingly, the High Court held that CIDCO’s decision to re-qualify and permit the ineligible bidder to participate in the financial bidding is bad in law.
The High Court’s Order reinforces the law that bids should be conducted in a transparent and fair manner. Further, while the powers of the judicial review in contractual matters are limited, a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is entitled to examine the decision-making process of an authority, if the same is arbitrary.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
