In a civil writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court to challenge a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 24-11-2025 by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and to pray for directions upon the respondents to reframe and re-issue the tender in conformity with the notifications dated 19-11-2015 as amended on 29-08-2018 issued under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (RTTP Act), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Sharma dismissed the petition for being devoid of merit.
The petitioner contended that the notification dated 19-11-2015 mandated procuring entities to reserve procurement of goods listed in the schedule exclusively from local MSME units and to accord price or purchase preferences to MSME units situated in Rajasthan, including concessional bidding document costs (50% of prescribed cost) and reduced bid security (0.5% of the value of quantity offered). The Court was informed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the tender proceedings had been finalised and the work order had been issued to the successful bidder. The successful bidder had also submitted an application for its impleadment as a party in the present petition.
The issue for consideration was whether the impugned NIT was issued in violation of the RTTP Act and the notification dated 19.11.2015 (as amended), and whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the NIT without having participated in the tender process.
The Court found that the reservation provision under the notification dated 19-11-2015 was confined only to items listed in the schedule, and while the petitioner relied on Item No. 58 relating to fabrication of all types, the NIT’s pre-qualifying criteria required bidders to be manufacturers of grinding balls who had supplied grinding media balls to M/s. BHEL/Stein. It was held that the petitioner placed no material on record to demonstrate that it was a manufacturer of the product or that it had ever supplied grinding media balls to M/s. BHEL/Stein, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the NIT regardless of the MSME argument.
It was found to be undisputed that the petitioner never attempted to participate in the impugned NIT, and merely claiming MSME status did not confer locus standi to challenge it. Relying on National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited (2018) 8 SCC 243 and Pathak Engineering Corporation & Anr. v. State of West Bengal& Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4688, the Court held that an entity failing to participate in a tender process could not be permitted to challenge it. The Court also held that courts could interfere only where there was arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or bias, and that greater latitude was required to be conceded to State authorities in formulating tender conditions. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition for being devoid of merit, finding no manifest illegality in the decision-making process.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Special Voter Mechanism for Homeless Persons Affected by Demolitions
