-
by sayum
04 August 2026 1:39 PM
“Only the stage and time to know the reasons... is deferred till the final decision on award of contract is taken”, Bombay High Court addressed a high-stakes legal dispute concerning transparency and fairness in public tenders. Dismissing L&T's plea to restrain the MMRDA from opening financial bids without prior communication of the fate of its technical bid, the Court upheld the principle that confidentiality during the tender evaluation process is paramount and legally protected under the tender's own clauses.
The dispute arose from a public tender floated by MMRDA on 27th July 2024 for a ₹8,000 crore underground road tunnel from Gaimukh to Fountain Hotel Junction, a key extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project. L&T, a major construction firm, was one of the bidders and submitted its technical bid on 13th December 2024. However, L&T was not informed whether its bid was deemed responsive or not, even as MMRDA proceeded to open financial bids on 13th May 2025. Claiming this was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice, L&T approached the High Court for interim relief.
The crux of the legal challenge lay in L&T’s interpretation of Clauses 27.7 and 27.8 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB), which require:
“The Employer will notify, in writing, Bidders who have been rejected on the grounds of their Technical Bids being substantially non-responsive…”
L&T argued that MMRDA’s failure to notify it before opening the financial bids was discriminatory and arbitrary. It relied on CVC guidelines, PWD norms, and precedents like Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corp. Ltd. v. Nirlac Chemicals and Reliance Energy Ltd. v. MRDC to assert that a fair process must involve prior intimation and reasoned disqualification.
In contrast, MMRDA, represented by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, cited Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 of the ITB, which prohibit disclosure of bid evaluations until contract award: “Information relating to the evaluation of Bids and recommendation of Contract award shall not be disclosed to Bidders… until information on Contract award is communicated…”
Rejecting L&T’s plea, the Court stated unequivocally: “It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to have set out the said clauses and explained why the same were not applicable… The Petitioner is guilty of suppression of a material fact.”
The Court accepted the MMRDA’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in National High Speed Rail Corp. v. Montecarlo Ltd., emphasizing that confidentiality clauses aim to avoid mid-process judicial interference and do not bar post-award remedies: “Only the stage and time to know the reasons and thereafter... is deferred till the final decision on award of contract is taken and communicated.”
The Court added that while L&T may raise its grievances later, it could not stall the tender process at this juncture. Highlighting the public importance of the project, the bench observed:
“Any delay would adversely impact the execution of the project... No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the Petitioner if all rights and contentions are kept open.”
The Court concluded that since the evaluation was ongoing and MMRDA had assured reasons for rejection would be communicated post-award, L&T’s current challenge was premature.
In dismissing L&T’s writ petition, the Bombay High Court reinforced the sanctity of confidentiality in tender procedures. It clarified that while transparency and fairness are crucial, they must operate within the framework laid out in the tender itself. The Court allowed the opening of financial bids to proceed, affirming that:
“The rights of the Petitioner would remain intact, as opposed to the grave prejudice that would be caused in the case of any delay to the project.”
The Court also directed MMRDA to preserve all price bids for two weeks post award communication, ensuring a fair opportunity for post-facto legal scrutiny.
Date of Decision: 20th May 2025
