A bid not meeting the lowest statutory requirements due to material non-compliance does not invalidate the tender if the overall statutory obligations are met, allowing a degree of flexibility in compliance interpretation.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.

Heard the parties

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disclose all the relevant documents including the bid documents submitted by respondent no. 4 being one of the bidder who has been declared successful bidder after opening of the price bid as ‘L1’ in violation of the terms and conditions of the tender documents/ Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).

(ii) To issue a rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose the decision of the tender committee declaring the respondent no. 4 after opening of the financial bid as ‘L1’

(iii) To issue a rule NISI in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the decision of the tender committee dated 06.08.2025 by which the respondent no. 4 has been declared as ‘L1’

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the matter afresh and be further pleased to direct that the work should be awarded to the bidder who has submitted the bid complying all the provisions of NIT.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee dated 06.08.2025, whereby respondent no. 4 has been declared as the successful bidder (L1) in complete violation of the mandatory terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). It is contended that the tender in question was issued by respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 vide advertisement no. EST/01/25 for “Hiring of agency for providing Security and Housekeeping service for the L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.” The learned counsel points out that the said tender invited as per section III Special Conditions of Contract, the intending bidders were required to comply besides other terms and conditions of the NIT, one of the terms & conditions which forms part of Section no. III of the Special Conditions of Contract (Relevant clauses of NIT- Annexure-P/1 AND Format of the Financial Bid- Annexure-P/2), the relevant clause (iii) reads thus:-

“The applying firm will quotes the ESL, EPF, Bonus, Uniform, Uniform washing and HRA rate in the column Daily Wages Rate on the current rate as per the Govt. Norms as quoted in the Part A of the Financial Bid (Statutory wages and deduction should be as per norms). Bidders not quoting rates in accordance with the prescribed format will be outrightly rejected.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that three bidders, including the petitioner and respondent no. 4, were found technically qualified and, accordingly, their financial bids were opened on 06.08.2025. However, despite the categorical stipulation in the tender conditions, respondent no. 4 quoted less than the minimum rate prescribed for EPF and, more significantly, quoted “NIL” in the Bonus column. The petitioner, on the other hand, quoted Bonus @ 8.33% and EPF @ 13% in strict compliance with the prescribed format. It is further contended that, had respondent no. 4 quoted the statutory minimums as mandated, it would have stood relegated to the position of ‘L3’ and could not have been declared successful.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the quotation of ‘NIL’ in respect of statutory dues such as EPF and Bonus cannot be regarded as a clerical error but amounts to a material non-compliance o