HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 12317 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. We have heard Sri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1. This petition has been taken up as an urgency mention was made in the morning and it was stated that the financial bids are going to be opened today. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:— i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the technical bid rejection of the petitioner dated 13.12.2025 passed by opposite party no. 2, contained as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the condition imposed in the tender notice dated 16.10.2025 under point no. 8.9, detail of technical tender document, which is irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary in nature, contained as Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for financial bid, treating the petitioner as qualified in the technical bid. It is the case of the petitioner that a notice inviting tender was issued on 16.10.2025. Bids were invited up to 4:00 P.M. on 06.11.2025 with regard to theka for parking sites of the Nagar Nigam. The petitioner, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lalit Kishore Tiwari, Karuna Shankar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shailendra Singh Chauhan M/S Feag Engineers And Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Rajput Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) being fully eligible, submitted his e-tender on 06.11.2025 for three sites, namely Nadan Mahal Road, Chander Nagar and Aminabad Jhandewala Park. Such e-tenders were uploaded at 3:50 P.M., 3:37 P.M. and 3:59 P.M., but all of them have been rejected in the technical bid on the ground of violation of point 8.9 of the tender notice and other points as well. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondents had invited e-tenders up to 4:00 P.M. on 06.11.2025, they could not have also simultaneously put a condition that hard copies of such e-tenders be also deposited on or before 4:00 P.M. in the office of the Nagar Nigam. It was virtually impossible for submitting hard copies before 4:00 P.M. on the very day on which e-tender applications were to be uploaded online by 4:00 P.M. It has also been submitted that there may have been a problem relating to traffic in reaching the office of the Nagar Nigam for submitting hard copies of the completed applications, and this fact has been ignored by the Nagar Nigam in placing such condition as paragraph 8.9 of the notice inviting tender. Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan has stated that the conditions relating to the notice inviting tender were mentioned in the tender document, which was purchased by the petitioner in advance. He knew about such condition and could have submitted the hard copy well in advance; only a scanned copy was to be submitted online. The hard copy could have been submitted before the scanned copy was submitted online. It has also been pointed out that on the basis of instructions sent by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, not only the petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the ground of non-compliance of paragraph 8.9 of the tender document, but the instructions clearly say that the petitioner's case was also rejected because of violation of paragraph 4(1)(ii) and paragraph 4(1)(iv), wherein there was a condition for submitting a self-attested copy of the receipt relating to 25 percent of the reserved price being deposited and the scanned copy being uploaded on the website of the Nagar Nigam. Also, scanned copies of all documents relied upon had to be uploaded on the website of the Nagar Nigam, which was not done. Hence, the technical bid has been rejected. WRIC No. 12317 of 2025 2 Sri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, has submitted that all documents relating to the tender have been uploaded by him; only the scanned copy of the fee receipt did not have the signature of the petitioner, and all other documents are in order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out a very narrow window for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in challenges raised to notices inviting tenders and conditions therein. The petitioner was well aware of the conditions mentioned in the tender document as soon as he bought the copy of the same. It is not clear as to why he waited for the last moment to upload scanned copies of the tender submitted by him. We find no good ground to show interference as prayed for. The writ petition stands dismissed. The instructions are kept on record. December 15, 2025 Ashish Dewal WRIC No. 12317 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench