Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Aditya Construction Company (JV), challenged the rejection of its bid by respondent authorities in response to a tender notice for cement concrete road work on National Highway No. 69. The tender document contained Condition No. 7.2, which required bidders to submit their technical and financial bids in separate envelopes. The petitioner submitted both bids in a single envelope, leading to rejection. The court examined whether this condition was essential and whether the rejection was justified. The court noted that the condition was clearly stated and was intended to ensure transparency and prevent manipulation. The petitioner's argument that the condition was merely procedural was rejected. The court held that the condition was mandatory and non-compliance warranted rejection. The petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Essential Condition - Mandatory Compliance - Condition No. 7.2 of Tender Document - The condition requiring submission of technical and financial bids in separate envelopes was an essential condition of the tender. The petitioner's failure to comply by submitting both bids in a single envelope justified rejection. The court held that such conditions are mandatory and non-compliance cannot be condoned as it affects the fairness and transparency of the bidding process (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid for non-compliance with Condition No. 7.2 of the tender document, which required separate envelopes for technical and financial bids, was valid and justified.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The rejection of the petitioner's bid is upheld.
Law Points
- Tender conditions
- Essential condition
- Mandatory compliance
- Non-compliance
- Rejection of bid
- Judicial review
- Public interest
