Courts must not interfere in bid rejection unless the decision is irrational or arbitrary; adherence to tender requirements is essential for bid acceptance.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of the bid submitted by the Petitioner for a tender floated by the Respondents herein for Appointment of Strategic Alliance Management Operator (SAMO) for providing Management, Handling and Operation Services at Inland Container Depot (ICD), Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, on the ground that the Petitioner's tender is non-responsive due to deficiencies in the bid document.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant Writ Petition are as under:

a. The Respondents herein issued a tender bearing No. CWC/RO-DLI/ICD-Loni/SAMO/TENDER/2022-23 dated 30.06.2022 for Appointment of Strategic Alliance Management Operator (SAMO) for providing Management, Handling and Operation Services at Inland Container Depot (ICD), Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, on the terms and conditions of the contract which was to be executed between the parties.

b. Material on record indicates that the tender document had defined the eligibility criteria and the requirements which had to be filled in by the bidder for being considered for the tender. A corrigendum dated 05.06.2022 was issued by the Respondents herein. On 16.08.2022, the Petitioner herein, in a JV/Consortium with its lead partner Ekta Enterprises, submitted its Technical Bid. Vide a letter dated 31.08.2022, it was informed to the Petitioner that its bid has been rejected as the Petitioner has been disqualified. The reasons for disqualification, as stated in the said letter, reads as under:

"Reason for disqualification: Following deficiencies observed in the documents submitted by the consortium reason a: Exhibit 8 Information for Technical Evaluation Operational Capability as per Format 1 and 2 is not submitted by the bidding consortium; Reason b: Minimum Guaranteed Throughput required as per subclause c of Clause 8 point 2 of the RFP document of the tender is not committed by the bidding consortium in Exhibit 9 In view of above shortcomings alongwith other non conformities and discrepancies vis a vis requirements or format promulgated in the document and the bidder is technically not qualified being non responsive in terms of paint 2 of Clause 3 read in conjunction with Clause 8 point 3 of RFP."

c. Vide letter dated 02.09.2022, the Petitioner herein responded to the communication dated 31.08.2022 stating that reason `a' provided for technical disqualification of the Petitioner is downright incorrect as the required Exhibit 8 has been submitted by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner clarified in respect of reason `b' that the required Exhibit-9 has been submitted and the figure for MGT (Minimum Guaranteed Throughput) is to be quoted in financial bid packet. It was submitted by the Petitioner that since the financial bid was based on MGT, which was to be quoted in the financial bid and not the technical bid, it was understood by the Petitioner that if it quoted the MGT figure in its technical bid, it would lead to vitiation of the technical bid.

d. It is stated that since the Respondents did not respond to the explanation offered by the Petitioner nor did they give any hearing to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition.

3. Mr. Rishi K. Awasthi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that all the materials sought for by the Respondents in the tender document had been provided. He states that the first reason for disqualification of the bid of the Petitioner is that in the bid document submitted by the Petitioner, Exhibit 8, which contains Information for Technical Evaluation Operational Capability, has not been properly submitted. He states that even though