Introduction:
The Patna High Court, in M/s Anirudh Sarswati Construction v. State of Bihar and Ors., delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the principle that mandatory conditions in tender documents cannot be relaxed or overlooked by authorities while evaluating bids. The case arose from a writ petition challenging the revised technical bid decision of the Rural Works Department concerning Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. RRSMP-11/2025-26 (Package No. Madhepura/05).
The petitioner, a participating bidder, contested the technical qualification of a competing bidder (respondent no. 8), who was not only declared technically qualified but was also subsequently declared the lowest bidder (L-1). The petitioner argued that the private respondent had failed to comply with a mandatory requirement under Clause 4.4A(a) of the Standard Bidding Document, namely, the submission of a payment certificate for the relevant financial year.
Despite this alleged non-compliance, the authorities proceeded to accept the respondent’s bid, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The case thus raised an important legal question regarding the extent to which tender conditions—particularly those designated as mandatory—can be relaxed or deviated from during the evaluation process.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s case was grounded in the principle of strict adherence to tender conditions and the requirement of maintaining fairness and transparency in public procurement processes.
It was contended that Clause 4.4A(a) of the Standard Bidding Document, as amended on 14.07.2025, explicitly mandated the submission of a payment certificate for the relevant financial year along with the bid documents. This requirement, according to the petitioner, was not merely procedural but substantive in nature, as it directly impacted the determination of a bidder’s eligibility and financial capacity.
The petitioner argued that respondent no. 8 had failed to submit the required payment certificate at the time of bid submission. Instead, the respondent had attached alternative documents such as ATO sheets and Form 26AS, which did not satisfy the specific requirement stipulated in the tender document.
It was further submitted that the omission of the payment certificate constituted a material defect that rendered the bid non-responsive. The petitioner emphasized that such a defect could not be cured after submission of the bid, as this would violate the principles of fairness and equality among bidders.
The petitioner also challenged the actions of the authorities in allowing respondent no. 8 to furnish additional documents after the submission of the bid. It was argued that this amounted to impermissible post-bid supplementation, which is expressly prohibited under the terms of the tender.
In support of this contention, the petitioner relied on Clauses 24.1 to 24.4 of the bidding document, which provide that the determination of responsiveness must be based solely on the contents of the bid as submitted, and that a materially deficient bid cannot be subsequently made responsive by curing omissions.
The petitioner further contended that the authorities had acted arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by relaxing mandatory conditions for one bidder while holding others to strict compliance. Such selective relaxation, it was argued, undermines the integrity of the tender process and creates an uneven playing field.
Finally, the petitioner sought quashing of the decision declaring respondent no. 8 technically qualified and subsequently as L-1, on the ground that it was contrary to the tender conditions and legally unsustainable.
Arguments by the Respondents:
The respondents, including the State and the private bidder, defended the decision of the authorities and sought to justify the qualification of respondent no. 8.
It was submitted that the department had duly considered the objections raised by the petitioner and had verified the documents submitted by respondent no. 8 before declaring it technically qualified. The respondents argued that the documents provided, including ATO sheets and Form 26AS, were sufficient to establish the financial credentials of the bidder.
The State contended that the purpose of requiring a payment certificate was to assess the bidder’s financial capability, and that this objective had been adequately met through the alternative documents submitted. It was argued that the authorities had exercised their discretion in a reasonable manner and had not acted arbitrarily.
The respondents further submitted that minor deviations or procedural lapses should not result in disqualification of a bidder, particularly when the bidder is otherwise qualified and capable of executing the work. They emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in tender evaluation, rather than a rigid or hyper-technical interpretation of conditions.
It was also argued that the petitioner had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the decision, and that the tender process had been conducted in a fair and transparent manner.
The private respondent, in particular, sought to justify the submission of alternative documents, contending that they provided sufficient proof of financial transactions and compliance with the intent of the tender condition.
Court’s Judgment:
The Patna High Court, comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh, undertook a detailed examination of the legal issue and the facts of the case.
At the outset, the Court framed the central question: whether a mandatory condition stipulated in a tender document can be overlooked or relaxed while determining the technical qualification of a bidder. The Court answered this question in the negative.
The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that the terms and conditions of a tender document constitute the foundational framework governing the bidding process. These conditions are binding not only on the bidders but also on the authority issuing the tender.
Emphasizing the importance of maintaining fairness, transparency, and equality in public procurement, the Court held that mandatory conditions cannot be diluted or relaxed in a manner that compromises these principles.
The Court examined Clause 4.4A(a) of the Standard Bidding Document and noted that it clearly required the submission of a payment certificate. This requirement, the Court observed, was integral to the assessment of eligibility and bid capacity.
Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that respondent no. 8 had admittedly not submitted the required payment certificate at the time of bid submission. The documents provided, such as ATO sheets and Form 26AS, were not a substitute for the mandatory certificate.
The Court further referred to Clauses 24.1 to 24.4 of the bidding document, which explicitly state that the determination of responsiveness must be based solely on the contents of the bid as submitted. These clauses also prohibit any post-submission rectification of material deviations.
In light of these provisions, the Court held that the omission of the payment certificate was a substantive defect that rendered the bid non-responsive. It further held that the authorities had acted illegally in permitting post-bid supplementation of documents by allowing respondent no. 8 to furnish additional material after submission.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the omission was a minor procedural lapse, observing that it directly affected the eligibility of the bidder and could not be treated as a curable defect.
The Court also found that the actions of the authorities were arbitrary and in violation of the principles of equality under Article 14. By relaxing mandatory conditions for one bidder, the authorities had created an uneven playing field and undermined the integrity of the tender process.
Accordingly, the Court held that the decision declaring respondent no. 8 technically qualified and subsequently as L-1 was contrary to the tender conditions and legally unsustainable.
The impugned decisions were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.