Bombay High Court Dismisses Ethanol Manufacturer's Plea To Bid For BPCL's 1,100 Crore Litre Ethanol Tender

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by Alpine Ethanol Private Limited seeking permission to participate in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited's (BPCL) tender for procurement of approximately 1,100 crore litres of denatured anhydrous ethanol for the 2026-27 supply year.

A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna held that courts should exercise restraint in interpreting tender conditions, as the authority issuing the tender is best placed to understand its requirements.

"This to the effect that the Courts would exercise restraint in such matters. Even if the interpretation given to the Tender document is not as such acceptable to the Writ Court, that by itself would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given by the author of the given Tender particularly when it cannot be faulted on the ground of vagueness or uncertainty. We are not inclined to deviate therefrom.", the Court said.

The dispute arose after BPCL issued a quantity bid tender on October 16, 2026 for procurement of approximately 1,100 crore litres of ethanol. Alpine Ethanol, a Karnataka based grain distillery, claimed to have established a 200 KLPD ethanol manufacturing plant after investing around ₹250 crore. It approached the High Court after being unable to access and download the tender document through BPCL's e-procurement portal.

The company sought directions permitting it to access the tender, submit its quantity bid and have its bid considered alongside those of other participants. The company argued that prior registration on the Integrated Ethanol Management System was not expressly prescribed as a mandatory condition. BPCL however, submitted that only 519 entities already registered as ethanol vendors on IEMS were eligible to participate.

The Bench rejected the petitioners' contention that the tender was not a limited tender. It noted that the Notice Inviting Tender itself described it as a "Limited Tender", restricting participation to eligible registered vendors.

The Court observed that Alpine had become "stuck" at Step 4 of the online process and could not proceed to Step 5, which involved downloading the tender document.

"Apropos the above, the record bears out that the Petitioners attempted to follow the prescribed procedure for registration on the E-Procurement website, as also stated in the above email. It was at this stage that the Petitioners could not move further from Step 4 i.e. “Click on Action Button To Participate in Tender (TenderConsolidated View)” to Step 5 i.e. “Download Tender Document-Click on the Icon”, which steps are envisaged under the Bidders Manual. The Petitioners admittedly 'got stuck' at Step 4 and could not download the Tender document at Step 5.", the court observed.

The Court also clarified that registration on BPCL's general e-procurement portal was distinct from registration on IEMS and did not confer eligibility to participate. Prior IEMS registration was a threshold requirement under the tender conditions.

Referring to Supreme Court decisions in Agmatel India Private Limited v. Resoursys Telecom and Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, the High Court reiterated that the author of a tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements.

Holding that Courts should not second guess the tendering authority's interpretation in judicial review proceedings merely because another interpretation may be possible, writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas, Advocates Shadab Jan, Suchitra Valjee, Arjun Bhal and Neelakshi Pal, instructed by Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co.

For the Respondents: Senior Advocates Navroz Seervai and Mustafa Doctor, Advocates Abeezar Faizullabhoy, Murtaza Kachwalla, Nikhilesh Koundinya, Abhinav Naiknaware and Shaumil Deb, instructed by Indus Law (for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3).