Recently, the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the rejection of a bidder’s technical qualification under a government procurement process, holding that tender conditions, when clearly worded, must be complied with strictly. The Court emphasised that eligibility criteria cannot be diluted through post-bid explanations or equitable considerations once the tender framework prescribes a mandatory documentary regime.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a challenge to the rejection of a technical bid submitted pursuant to a Request for Proposal issued for the supply of approximately 8,00,000 tailor toolkits under the PM Vishwakarma Scheme. The tender document stipulated that bidders relying on Private/Institutional sales were required to demonstrate prior experience of selling at least 2,40,000 sewing machines in any one financial year within the preceding five years. Such experience was to be substantiated through a Chartered Accountant, a certified work experience certificate, strictly in the format prescribed in the RFP. Despite submitting a CA certificate along with GST invoices, purchase orders, and bank statements, the petitioner’s bid was rejected on the ground that it failed to upload Letters of Acceptance or Work Completion Certificates, as mandated under Note 2 of Annexure V. Subsequent representations and an earlier judicial direction requiring a reasoned decision did not alter the outcome, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary and reflected a mechanical reading of the tender conditions. The Counsel contended that Clause 4.4(ii) required evaluation of performance solely on the basis of a CA certificate and did not independently mandate uploading of LoAs or WCCs for Private/Institutional sales. Emphasis was placed on the submission of extensive supporting material, including GST returns and bank statements, to demonstrate that the petitioner had exceeded the minimum sales threshold. The Petitioner further argued that in private or institutional transactions, formal work completion documents may not always exist, and therefore, insisting upon such documents amounted to an unreasonable and discriminatory application of the tender conditions.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Respondent contended that the tender conditions left no scope for discretion or relaxation. The respondents submitted that Clause 4.4(ii) expressly required the CA certificate to be furnished “only as per Annexure V”, and that Note 2 of Annexure V unequivocally mandated uploading LoAs or Work Experience Certificates along with the bid. The failure to submit these documents, it was argued, rendered the bid technically non-responsive. Reliance was placed on prior judicial precedent to submit that non-compliance with mandatory eligibility documents cannot be cured through clarifications or subsequent representations.
Observation of the Court:
The Court held that while Clause 4.4(ii) refers to evaluation of experience through a CA certificate, the use of the expression “only as per Annexure V” was of critical significance. The Bench clarified that “it is not the mere furnishing of CA certificate which would be the sole criteria for consideration of eligibility, but the manner in which Annexure V proposes such CA certificate to be.”
The Court further highlighted that Note 2 of Annexure V explicitly requires that “for Private/Institutional Sales, copies of LOAs/ Work Experience Certificates must be uploaded along with the Bid and the same shall be considered for evaluation.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s submission that alternative financial documents could substitute this requirement, the Bench observed that “the irresistible conclusion that Note 2 would be mandatory and binding on all the bidders who seek eligibility under Private/Institutional sales, has to be underscored.”
The Court concluded that the procuring authority’s decision could not be faulted, observing that “in view of the provisions of Clause 4.4(ii) read with Annexure V of the RFP, there is little that this Court can interfere with.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner’s failure to upload LoAs or Work Completion Certificates, as mandatorily required under the tender conditions, rendered it ineligible for technical qualification.
Case Title: Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 8397/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Adv. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Hon’ble Adv. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr Adv. Vikas Singh, Adv. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Himanshu Sachdeva, Adv. Namanveer Singh, Adv. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Pranjal Tripathi, Adv. Satyam, Adv. Deepika Kalia, Adv.Vasudha Singh, Adv. Sudeep Chandraand
Advocate for the Respondent: ASG. Chetan Sharma, Adv. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Sunil, Sr. Adv. Anurag Ahluwalia, Adv. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Amit Gupta, Adv. R.V. Prabhat, Adv. Shubham Sharma, Adv. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Adv. Naman, Adv. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Jatin Dhamija, Adv. Vinayak Aren, Adv. Rajesh Jain, Adv. Dhirender, K.G.S. Moorty, Adv. Shweta Bharti, Adv.Tejaswini Chandrasekhar Adv Sanskruti Jinwal Adv. Jasleen Kaur, Adv. Rashi Suri,
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :