Tuesday, April 28, 2026
Latest:
2026High CourtLatestLegalMarch 2026

Bombay HC – Denial of Security Clearance to foreign JV Partner for CIDCO tenders, based on national security inputs, cannot be judicially overturned on ground of arbitrariness.

legaldeli

On 23.7.2024, the Cidco issued NIB for Tenders 1 and 2 for Town Planning Schemes pertaining to vital installations and infrastructure of new airport.

The petitioner participated in the said tenders through JV consortium with a company Azerbaijan.  The said JV partner is executing another project of tunnel road project after security clearance.  However, it was denied in the instant tenders.

We find substance in the submission of learned Senior Advocate for CIDCO that the petitioner is placing reliance on a certain Clause 43 from an unrelated bid document, that is the ITB, and claiming that the petitioner is entitled to be exempted from the strict requirement of Clause 3(t) of the NIB.

In projects of strategic or infrastructural importance, the Government is free to adopt such measures as it considers necessary to safeguard national security. Even where commercial interests are involved, considerations of national security must take precedence. Economic gains or contractual expectations cannot override concerns relating to the safety and integrity of the Nation. The larger interest of the country must prevail over private or commercial considerations.

We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that CIDCO was justified in insisting for a security clearance. That the petitioner JV is L1 bidder is no ground to do away with the mandatory requirement of security clearance insisted upon by CIDCO.

we are inclined to agree with the submission of Shri Chetan Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for CIDCO that “bid evaluation” is a continuous long drawn process and can only be completed after issuance of the allotment letter in favour of the lowest bidder. The term “bid evaluation” cannot be interpreted to mean that the tendering authority i.e. CIDCO is injuncted from raising bid document requirements after a specific date/stage. The evaluation of the technical bid and financial bid are only parts of the overall “bid evaluation”.

Judgment dated 7.3.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.10537 of 2025 of Thakur Infraprojects Pvt Limited   Vs.  State of Maharashtra and others with connected writ petitions.

You May Also Like

Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act & SARFAESI Act – Arbitrator OR DR Tribunal – Petitioner is non-banking financial institution giving loans for purchase of vehicles.

legaldeli

IAS Officers of MP cannot be reporting, reviewing or accepting authority for performance appraisal of IFS Officers

legaldeli

Section 18 of MSMED Act – Whether registration is necessary pre-condition to refer dispute to the Facilitation Council?

legaldeli

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER AND AGREE TO IT.

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the "AGREE" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about LegalDeli for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from LegalDeli or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledge site. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.

Disclaimer
About: This knowledge-site (www.LegalDeli.in) is owned and operated by LegalDeli (“LD”), and is a resource for your informational and educational purposes only.

No Warranty: LD does not warrant that any content or information contained on this knowledge-site is accurate, correct, complete or up-to-date, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any actual or threatened loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or otherwise. LD assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the content and/or information contained on this knowledge-site, nor does it offer any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied in relation to such content or information.

Third-Party Links: LD does not intend that links / URLs contained on this knowledge-site re-directing users to third party websites be considered as referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with any such third party website operators. LD is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the content or information contained on such third party websites to which links may be provided on this knowledge-site.

No Legal Advice: By clicking ‘I agree’ and proceeding further, you acknowledge, represent and undertake that you on your own accord wish to know more about LD, its capabilities and research content and information contained on the knowledge-site, for your own knowledge and personal use. The content and information contained on this knowledge-site should not be construed as nor relied upon as legal advice. You as a reader or recipient of content or information contained in this knowledge-site should not act, nor refrain from acting, based upon any or all of such content or information, but should always seek the advice of competent legal counsel licensed to practice the relevant law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

No Attorney-Client Relationship: This knowledge-site is not intended to be and you should not consider the content or information contained therein to be an advertisement, solicitation, inducement or invitation for an Attorney-Client relationship. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledge-site, including content and information contained therein, does not constitute nor create an Attorney-Client relationship between LD and you.

I Agree