WP-699-2026-JT.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.699/2026 1. WILL OFFSHORE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SERVICES ORGANIZATION, a Micro Enterprise, having address at No.C 39, B & C, B R Steel Rd, MIDC Industrial Area, Pawne, Behind GAMI, Industrial Park Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400705 2. GOVINDAN M., Aged 57 years Indian inhabitant, Director of the Petitioner, having address at No.C 39, B & C, B R Steel Rd MIDC Industrial Area, Pawne, Behind GAMI, Industrial Park Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400705. … PETITIONERS Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, represented through the oice of Government Pleader, High Court, Goa. 2. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered oice at Oil and Natural Gas Corporation limited, Plot No. 5A 5B Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070, Having oice at ONGC IPSHEM, Betul, P.O. Velim, South Goa-403723. 3. SURAKSHA MARINE PETROSKILLS LTD. PVT. A/1308, Oberoi Splendor, Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road, Opposite Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai 400060. … RESPONDENTS 24th September 2026 2026:BHC-GOA:1974-DB WP-699-2026-JT.DOC Mr Shivan Desai and Ms Riya Amonkar, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr S. Karpe, Central Government Standing Counsel with Ms Samiksha Vaigankar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr John A. Lobo, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Ms Neha Kholkar and Ms Saicha Dessai, Advocates for Respondent No.3. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED: 24th SEPTEMBER 2026 JUDGMENT : (Per Valmiki Menezes, J.) 1. his Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to strike down the process of Bid-bearing No. GEM/2025/B/6423740 dated 11.07.2025 for Services-Hiring of O & M and training of Sea Survival Center, at ATI ONGC, Goa issued by the Respondent No.2, ONGC as arbitrary and unreasonable; since the bids in the tender, both, technical and inancial were subsequently opened and the work order dated 11.08.2025 was issued in favour of Respondent No.3, the work order is also challenged. 2. According to the averments made in the Petition, the Bid Document, which is dated 11.07.2025 was vague and did not disclose the clarity of the training load (number of trainees per batch) that the potential bidders were required to bid for; the Petitioner raises a grievance that it had raised these objections by sending emails to the Respondent No.2 and to the Independent 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC External Monitor (IEM), without any response, prior to the submission of bids or prior to the opening of the Technical Bid. According to the Petitioner, in the absence of the details of the training load, the bids would be speculated and there would be no fairness, transparency or reasonableness in the bidding process. 3. An aidavit in reply came to be iled by the Respondent No.2 – ONGC which denies the claim of the Petitioner. According to the aidavit, the details of the training load were suiciently stated, and prior to the Bid Document being published, it is the case of the ONGC that a Letter of Expression of Interest (EOI) was issued to all providers of such services, including the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 who attended the pre-bid meeting and conference where clariications for their doubts were given. he aidavit states that in addition, aspiring bidders could email their queries, and during this process, the Petitioner raised none of the grievances now sought to be taken as grounds in the Petition. 4. he aidavit of the ONGC further objects to the admission of this Petition, on the grounds that there is a suppression of facts and at no point of time was any query raised by the Petitioner as to the training load, either prior to the bidding process commencing nor during the interaction at the pre-bid stage. he aidavit further states that the queries of the Petitioner were dealt with by the IEM in its opinion dated 08.08.2025, wherein clauses 5.1 and 5.2 had speciically dealt with the query of training load and the criterion were all in line with OPITO Norms, which were known to the Petitioner. Page 3 of 17 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC 5. Respondent No.3, the successful tenderer has iled an aidavit in reply wherein, it states that there were three successful bidders, after Technical and Financial Bids were opened. he aidavit reproduces the bids – Respondent No.2 – Rs.17,84,16,000/-, Little Silver – Rs.36,10,80,000/- and he Petitioner – Rs.50,77,77,777/-. he objections to the Petition raised by the Respondent No.3 are the following: (a) he Petitioner did not raise any queries as to requirement of trainees, prior to the tender process; (b) he Petitioner participated in the tender process without demur and now cannot challenge the tender on the grounds of vagueness or lack of details. (c) hat the tenders were invited from OPITO Accredited Service Providers of which the three short-listed, technically qualiied tenderers which include the Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner were amongst; the Petitioner is therefore expected to know all the requirements of diferent training modules, being an OPITO Accredited Service Provider. 6. he following submissions were made by Mr Shivan Desai on behalf of the Petitioners: (a) hat the Bid Document and the bidding process did not disclose the training load and therefore, any potential bidder could not submit a bid due to lack of clarity in the conditions stipulated in the tender document. he entire 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC process therefore was devoid of fairness, transparency and reasonableness. he nature of the services to be provided being highly technical, the document ought to have given the details of the training load for each module. Consequently, the entire tender process was vitiated. (b) hat despite raising speciic queries with the Respondent No.2 as to what was the training load against which the bids were to be iled, there was no details provided by the Respondent No.2 which proceeded to open the Technical and the Financial Bids. he learned counsel has taken us through the tender document, the correspondence on record and the scope of work to contend that at no point of time was the Respondents forthcoming with the training load for each course, to enable the Petitioner to bid for the contract with absolute clarity. Reliance was placed by the Petitioner on the following case law: (i) Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v/s Ashish Jain & Ors1. (ii) MP Power Management Co. Ltd, Jabalpur v/s Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd.2. (iii) Ulex Ltd. v/s Government of Tamil Nadu3. (iv) Food Corporation of Inida v/s M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries4. 1 (2023) SCC OnLine SC 995 2 (2023) 2 SCC 703 3 (2021) SCC OnLine SC 738 4 (1993) 1 SCC 71 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC (v) Jagdish Mandal v/s State of Orissa5. (vi) Silppi Constructions Contractors v/s Union of India6. (vii) Union of India v/s International Trading Co.7 (viii) Shinde Developers Private Limited v/s Mormugao Port Authority8. 7. Mr Subodh Kantak, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.3 has advanced the following submissions: (a) He has taken us through the various communications of the Petitioner addressed to the Respondent No.2 and to the IEM prior to iling its bid, to submit that none of these raised a query as to the training load under the tender document. He has also taken us to the opinion of the IEM dated 08.08.2025 with its indings at paragraphs 5.2 and 5.6 of the reply, to contend that all OPITO certiied service providers, including the Petitioner are aware of the technical manuals and speciications of each OPITO Training Module, and therefore cannot raise objections as to training load not speciied in the tender document. he learned counsel argues that there is no statement made in the Petition that in the absence of training load being speciied, the Petitioner’s bid was speculative. 5 (2007) 14 SCC 517 6 (2020) 16 SCC 489 7 (2003) 5 SCC 437 8 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1267 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC (b) It was further argued that the Petition does not allege any malaides on the part of Respondent No.2 in the tender process and considering that the inancial bids were opened on 09.08.2025 and the Respondent No.3 was issued a Work Order on the same date, a year having passed since then, it would serve no public interest to entertain the Petition. Reliance was placed by the Respondent No.3 on the following case law: (i) Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v/s State of Karnataka and Others9. (ii) Afcons Infrastructure Limited v/s Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another10. (iii) National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v/s Montecario Limited and Another11. 8. Mr John Lobo, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 – ONGC, apart from reiterating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has submitted, based on the aidavit of the Respondent No.2 that the Petition sufers from suppression of material facts, in that, the Petitioner has nowhere disclosed the fact that it has attended the pre-bid meetings at the stage of Expression of Interest (EOI) nor has it raised at these meetings or prior to submitting its bid, any objection as to the vagueness of the tender document on the ground that it did not specify the training load; it was further contended that prior to 9 (2012) 8 SCC 216 10 (2016) 16 SCC 818 11 (2002) 6 SCC 401 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC the bids being opened, the Petitioner has submitted an undertaking dated 02.08.2025 after attending the post-bid conference on 01.08.2025 conirming their willingness to participate in the process of opening of the Financial Bids. he Petitioner has further withdrawn its protest under which it made its bids, vide communication of 06.08.2025, and has participated in the opening of the Financial Bids, and consequently cannot now raise grounds which were stated in its protest letter of 28.07.2025. 9. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. On considering the rival submissions, and the pleadings of the parties, we reject the Petition for the following reasons. he Petitioner has not alleged any malaides in the Petition, or contended that the tender process was tailor made and with the intention to favour one of the parties or the successful bidder. In the present case, there were only three bidders, of which the Petitioner’s bid was the highest. It is settled law that the words used in the tender document and the requirements of the tender are to be left to the party who calls for the bids. Writ Courts are not permitted to examine the document minutely and to impute any vagueness or arbitrariness in the document or the tender process, as these are to be left to the party calling for bids. hat party would be the best judge of the entire process and the draft of the tender document. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra) 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC the Supreme Court has laid down this very principle, in the following words : “13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. he threshold of mala ides, intention to favour, someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision. 14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superluous they must be given meaning and their necessary signiicance. In this context, the use of the word "metro) in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents-and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked. 15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. he constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala ide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is hot acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. 16. In the present appeals, although there does not appear to be any ambiguity or doubt about the interpretation given by NMRCL to the tender conditions, we are of the view that even if there was such an ambiguity or doubt, the High Court ought to have refrained from giving its own interpretation unless it had come to a clear conclusion that the interpretation given by NMRCL was perverse or mala ide or intended to favour one of the bidders. his was certainly not the case either before the High Court or before this Court.” 11. Following Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), a later decision of the Supreme Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation (supra), the scope of judicial review and the considerations by a Writ Court before interfering in a contract matter in exercise of powers of judicial review have been considered in the following terms: “29. hus, from the aforesaid decisions, it can be seen that a court before interfering in a contract matter in exercise of powers of judicial review should b pose to itself the following questions: 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala ide or intended to favour someone or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"? And (ii) Whether the public interest is afected? If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.” 30. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when a conscious decision was taken by ICC/JICA holding the bid submitted by the original writ petitioner as non- responsive/non-compliant to the technical requirements of the bidding documents and sufering from material deviation, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in interfering with the tender process and interfering with the decision of JICC/JICA rejecting the bid submitted by the original writ petitioner at technical stage.” 12. he aforementioned Judgment was also based on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (supra) where the Supreme Court was considering the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC contracts entered into by the State pursuant to a tender process. Following are the observations by the Supreme Court therein: “23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) he basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. hese actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities. (b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited, (c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract. greater 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted; (d) Certain preconditions or qualiications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. 24. 24. herefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala ide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached and 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC (ii) Whether the public interest is afected? If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.” 13. Applying the ratio and principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments to the facts of the present case, we ind no cause for interference with the decision of the ONGC to award the contract to Respondent No.3, since we ind neither arbitrariness in the tender process nor the tender document to sufer from such vagueness so as to vitiate the entire process. We have concised the documents which are part of the record, to come to the above conclusions, hereinbelow: DATE EVENT 19.05.2025 Respondent No.2 – ONGC calls for the vendor interaction and site visit, and Expression Of Interest (EOI) to prospective bidders. Petitioner, Respondent No.3 and other prospective bidders attend the meeting on 20.05.2025. here is no objections raised or query placed on record of the Petitioner as to the training load expected for each course. Note must be taken of the fact that from the record it transpires that the Petitioner is an OPITO certiied service provider with years of experience, as claimed by it and would be expected to have a clear understanding of the services to be provided under the tender. 11.07.2025 Respondent No.2 loats the bid for services-Hiring of O & M and training of Sea Survival Center, at ATI ONGC, Goa for a period of three years. No queries as to the training load were raised by the Petitioner. he Petitioner’s letters dated 21.07.2025, 22.07.2025 and 25.07.2025 do not raise any 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC speciic query as to training load or that the tender document sufers from vagueness as it does not specify the training load for each of the training modals. 28.07.2025 he Petitioner submits its bid under protest. Even in the protest letter the grounds raised in this Petition are not speciically raised and are extremely vague. 28.07.2025 Technical Bid is opened and the Petitioner qualiies for the same. 01.08.2025 he Petitioner attends a pre-inancial bid meeting with the Respondent No.3 after which it issues a letter dated 02.08.2025 in the form of an undertaking, that it has fully understood all queries of Respondent No.2. 06.08.2025 he Petitioner sends a communication to Respondent No.2 wherein it records that it would attend the meeting of Respondent No.2 to be held on 06.08.2025 and further records that it has withdrawn its protest. On the giving of the undertaking and withdrawal of protest, respondent No.2 proceeds to consider the Petitioner’s bid. 09.08.2025 he price bids were opened and the Respondent No.3 was declared the lowest tenderer. 14. Considering the above facts, what is clear is that the Petitioner had the option of continuing its protest and challenging the tender document, as has been done in the Petition, even prior to opening of the inancial bids. Instead, the Petitioner chose to wait for it to be declared as technically qualiied, when technical bids were opened on 28.07.2025, and 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC thereafter give an undertaking and withdraw its protest on 06.08.2025 before the inancial bids were opened. he Petitioner has therefore clearly chosen to waive its protest and participate in the inancial bid, when its cause of action had arisen to press for its grounds in challenge to the tender document itself, as far back as 28.07.2025. On this conduct alone, it is obvious that the Petition has been iled as an afterthought, only after the Petitioner’s bid had been knocked out as the highest amongst the three bidders. his conduct by itself disentitles the Petitioner from reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. It is also not the Petitioner’s case in the Petition that the tender document was so vague and devoid of particulars as to the training load, that would render the Petitioner’s bid to be speculative. he Petition also does not allege any malaides or facts, if accepted by the Court that would lead to a conclusion, that the entire tender process was designed to favour any one bidder. We must also consider the fact that the Work Order has been awarded to the Respondent No.3 on 09.08.2025, and since then Respondent No.3 has been providing services of training under the tender document for more than a year of out of the three year contract. In the background of all these facts, we are clearly of the opinion that absolutely no public interest would be served, even if we had concluded that there was arbitrariness in the tender process, at this stage, after one year of the Work Order having been performed, to interfere in Writ jurisdiction of this Court. 24th September 2026 WP-699-2026-JT.DOC 16. In these background facts therefore, we reject this Petition at the threshold. Rule is therefore discharged. In the circumstances and facts stated above, this would be a it case to impose costs on the Petitioner which are quantiied at Rs.50,000/-. he Petitioner shall deposit these costs to the account of the Goa High Court Bar Association in the name of “Legal Training/Education Fund”, within a period of two weeks from today. 17. he Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 24th September 2026 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 05/10/2026 10:41:30