Bombay High Court

M/S. ANUNI INFRASTRUCTURE THR. PARTNER SACHIN TUKARAM PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY URABN DEVELOPMENT AND ANR.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The clause is not arbitrary or discriminatory; the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, M/s Anuni Infrastructure, challenged clause 6.1.14 of a B‑1 tender issued by Karad Municipal Council, which required bidders to have prior experience in developing a Namo Udyan and to submit a work‑order as proof. The petitioner argued that the clause was arbitrary, discriminatory, and not present in similar tenders issued by other municipal bodies, invoking Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that a bidder who has already participated cannot question tender criteria and cited precedents that tender terms are generally immune from judicial scrutiny unless wholly arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court examined the clause, the petitioner’s participation, and the cited authorities, concluding that the condition was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and that the petitioner had not demonstrated any violation of constitutional principles. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the tender process and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether clause 6.1.14 requiring prior Namo Udyan development experience is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14/Article 19(1)(g).
Whether a bidder who has participated in the tender process can challenge the tender’s eligibility criteria.
Whether the tender condition is amenable to judicial review.

Subjects

public procurement
tender conditions
arbitrariness
discrimination
Article 14
Article 19(1)(g)
judicial review
eligibility criteria

Judgment

42-WP-4576-2026.doc

Digitally signed

HARISH
by HARISH
VITHAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VITHAL CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.09.28
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
11:00:17 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4576 OF 2026

M/s. Anuni Infrastructure
Thr. Partner Sachin Tukaram Patil ...Petitioner.
Versus
State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Secretary Urabn Development And Another ...Respondents.

——————
Mr. Kalpesh Uttam Patil for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Prasad Pradeep Kulkarni a/w Nakul V. Shukla, Amol Deshinge & C. J. Gaikwad
for Respondent No. 2.
——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 24, 2026.
P. C. :

1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting

aside of the impugned tender condition no. 6.1.14 in the B-1 tender

issued by the Karad Municipal Council for the development of Namo

Udyan on plot no. 468/A/10 situated within the limits of Karad City,

District Satara.

2. In September, 2025, the respondent no. 1 (Urban Development

Department) approved ₹394 crores to build Namo Udyan across 394

Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats in the State and sanctioned ₹1

crore for each garden across participating Municipal Councils and Nagar

Harish 1 of 7
42-WP-4576-2026.doc

Panchayats. Respondent no. 2, Chief Oicer, Karad Municipal Council,

published the B-1 tender for the development of Namo Udyan on 7 th

August, 2026.

3. The petitioner submitted its bid on 14th August, 2026. It is pleaded

that respondent no. 2 did not hold any pre-bid meeting, and a

representation came to be addressed on 14 th August, 2026 contending

that clause 6.1.14 is unreasonable and that the same be deleted.

4. In response thereto, respondent no. 2 addressed a

communication dated 18th August, 2026 calling upon the petitioner to

submit the Namo Garden work order and bid capacity certiied by a

Chartered Accountant. Being aggrieved by non-response to the

representation of the petitioner seeking deletion of condition 6.1.14,

the present petition has been iled.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court

through clause 6.1.14, which prescribes the experience of successfully

developing a Namo Udyan as a qualifying criterion. He submits that the

tenders which are loated by other Municipal Councils do not contain

such a condition, and points out to the Rahimatpur Nagar Parishad

tender as well as the Malkapur Municipal Council tender. He submits

that the imposition of such a condition by the Karad Municipal Council is

therefore arbitrary. He would further point the representation made by

the petitioner to respondent no. 2 calling upon to delete the said

Harish 2 of 7
42-WP-4576-2026.doc

condition. Drawing support from the decision in the case of Vinishma

Technologies Pvt. Ldt. vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Others : [2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2119], he submits that in case of Government tenders,

without adequate reason, no person can be excluded, which constitutes

an arbitrary action which is liable to be quashed. He submits that the

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the principle of non-

discrimination is embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and

that the doctrine of a level playing ield is an important concept while

construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Karad Municipal

Council would submit that the petitioner is precluded from challenging

the tender conditions, having participated in the tender process and

submitting the bid. He submits that this Court in the case of Alankit

Assignments Limited vs. Union of India; [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2509] has

precisely considered an identical issue and has held that after

participation, it is not open to a petitioner to challenge the criteria of

evaluation or any other condition of the RFP document. He will also rely

on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Global Energy

Ltd And Another vs. Adani Exports Ltd And Others ; [(2005) 4 SCC 435],

holding that the terms of an invitation to tender are not open to judicial

scrutiny and the courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as

they are in the realm of contract, unless they are wholly arbitrary,

Harish 3 of 7
42-WP-4576-2026.doc

discriminatory, or actuated by malice.

7. We have considered the submissions and perused the tender

documents. Clause 6.1.14 of the tender document reads as under:

“6.1.14. “The bidder shall have experience of successfully
developing Namo Udyan (Namo Garden). A copy of the
relevant Work Order shall be submitted along with the
tender as documentary proof of such experience.”

8. The tender has been loated for building a Namo Udyan, and the

Karad Municipal Council has prescribed the qualifying experience

criteria of successful development of Namo Udyan. It is not disputed

that the petitioner has participated in the bid process and the argument

on behalf of the petitioner that, in the event the petitioner had not

participated, a counter-argument would have been advanced that, as

the petitioner has not participated, he cannot challenge the tender

conditions. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. The

tender was loated on 7th August 2026, and the petitioner was aware of

the tender conditions; and in fact had submitted representation to the

Municipal Council seeking deletion of condition 6.1.14. It was therefore

open to the petitioner to approach this Court claiming that he satisies

all eligibility criteria except condition 6.1.14, which is arbitrary,

discriminatory, or has been included to favor any particular party, all of

which reasons are permissible for challenging a tender condition. The

Harish 4 of 7
42-WP-4576-2026.doc

petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted all requisite

documents with the tender bid on 14 th August 2026, and thereafter has

iled the present petition on 10th September 2026. This Court is

informed that, in the meantime, the technical bids were opened.

9. The decision in the case of Alankit Assignments Ltd. (supra)

squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Division

Bench of this Court held in paragraph 18 as under :

18. It is to be further noticed that the Petitioner has
participated in the bid and hence after participation, it is not
open to the Petitioner to challenge the criteria of evaluation or
any other condition of the RFP document. This view is fully
supported by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Sai Agencies, Jalna v. The State of Maharashtra.
Paragraph No. 41.(2) of this judgment is relevant, which is
extracted hereinbelow;
"41. (2) Validity
Petitioner has challenged the validity of condition No. 3 of said
Tender. Petitioner states that this condition restricts the
successful bidder from getting more than one work with respect
to work Nos. 1 to 9 of said tender. After examining the material
on record, we ind that condition No. 3 was applicable to tender
Nos. 1 to 9 and those tenders were cancelled by Respondent No.
2 in its meeting dated 20th August, 2019. Thereafter, petitioner
submitted tender for tender work Nos. 10 to 14. It indicates that
petitioner was aware about cancellation of tender Nos. 1 to 9.
The petitioner has suppressed this fact. Even otherwise, it is well
settled law that a bidder who has participated in a tender

Harish 5 of 7
42-WP-4576-2026.doc

cannot turn around and challenge the terms and conditions of
the tender and Tender conditions are immune from judicial
review:"

10. The Division Bench has also held that the tender-loating

authority has to be given latitude in formulating the tender conditions,

for the reason that it is the best judge of the work which it requires to

be performed by the selected bidder. While inviting tenders for

executing a particular work, the tender-inviting authority is bound by

the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and reasonableness;

however, for setting of terms of invitation, the tender-issuing authority

has to be given greater leeway. The aspect of arbitrariness and

unreasonableness is premised on the ground that the other Municipal

Councils have not inserted the said condition. The same cannot

constitute an unreasonable action on the part of the Karad Municipal

Council, which has thought it it to insert the condition of having

successfully completed the development of Namo Udyan, which is a

speciic project. The petitioner cannot seek judicial review of the tender

conditions without demonstrating arbitrariness or unreasonableness, or

that the condition has been imposed to favor any particular party.

11. In the case of Global Energy Ltd. And Another (supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held in paragraph 10 as under:

“10. The principle is, therefore, well settled that the terms of

Harish 6 of 7
42-WP-4576-2026.doc

the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and the
courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are
in the realm of contract unless they are wholly arbitrary,
discriminatory or actuated by malice. This being the position of
law, settled by a catena of decisions of this Court, it is rather
surprising that the learned Single Judge passed an interim
direction on the very irst day of admission hearing of the writ
petition and allowed the appellants to deposit the earnest
money by furnishing a bank guarantee or a bankers' cheque till
three days after the actual date of opening of the tender. The
order of the learned Single Judge being wholly illegal, was,
therefore, rightly set aside by the Division Bench.”

12. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the

case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), however, in the present

case, we do not ind that the imposition of condition 6.1.14 is arbitrary

or unreasonable, or for the purpose of excluding any person from the

tender process.

13. In light of the above, we decline to interfere in the tender

process. Resultanty, petition fails and stands dismissed.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Harish 7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…