Protecting Public Procurement: A Landmark Win for RRVUNL

RRVUNL Tender Challenge Case: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Non-Bidder’s Petition

In a civil writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Sharma dismissed a challenge to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (RRVUNL) on 24-11-2025. The petitioner sought directions to reframe and re-issue the tender in conformity with MSME-related procurement notifications issued under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012. Notably, by the time the matter reached hearing, the tender proceedings had already been finalised and the work order issued to the successful bidder, who had also applied to be impleaded in the petition.

The Legal Issue Before the Court

The central questions before the Court were twofold: whether the tender violated MSME reservation and price-preference notifications under the RTTP Act, and — more fundamentally — whether the petitioner even had the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the tender without ever having participated in the bidding process itself. The petitioner argued that the NIT’s terms failed to extend the concessions mandated for local MSME units under the applicable notifications.

Kartik Seth’s Role in Representing RRVUNL

Advocate Kartik Seth appeared as part of the legal team representing RRVUNL in this matter, alongside senior and other counsel appearing for the Respondents. The defence centred on establishing that the petitioner had never attempted to participate in the tender process and had failed to demonstrate that it met the NIT’s pre-qualifying eligibility criteria — namely, being a manufacturer of grinding balls with a supply history to BHEL/Stein. This argument proved decisive, as the Court found the petitioner ineligible to bid regardless of its claimed MSME status, undercutting the very foundation of its challenge.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court held that a non-bidder cannot ordinarily challenge a tender process, relying on established precedents including National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited and Pathak Engineering Corporation v. State of West Bengal. It further reaffirmed that judicial interference in tender matters is warranted only where arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or bias is demonstrated — and that public authorities must be given adequate latitude in framing tender conditions. Finding no manifest illegality in RRVUNL’s decision-making process, the Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit — a result shaped in significant part by the arguments advanced by Kartik Seth and the RRVUNL legal team.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling offers long-term protection to RRVUNL — and public-sector entities more broadly — against speculative challenges brought by parties who never engaged with the tender process in the first place. Kartik Seth’s involvement in this matter, as part of RRVUNL’s representing counsel, reflects his continued engagement in public procurement and tender law, an area requiring deep familiarity with the RTTP Act, MSME procurement policy, and the judicial standards governing State discretion in framing eligibility conditions.