The court upheld the requirement of compliance with mandatory tender conditions, reaffirming that failure to submit necessary documents, like a Power of Attorney, results in bid rejection.

ORDER :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Addl. A.G. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 25.06.2025, wherein the petitioner’s technical bid was declared non-responsive, on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted a copy of the Power of Attorney proving that the Power of Attorney holder had signed the bid documents and not furnishing a copy of the Memorandum of Articles of Association in terms of Clause 3.4 of the Information and Guidelines for bidders (Section – II: Technical Bid), which states as follows:-

“3.4 If the bidder is a limited company or a corporation, the application shall be signed by a duly authorized person holding power of attorney for signing the application accompanied by a copy of the power of attorney. The bidder should also furnish a copy of the Memorandum of Articles of Association duly attested by a Public Notary.”

3. Clause 3.4 of the Information and Guidelines for bidders required the bid documents to be signed by a duly authorised person holding a Power of Attorney, if the bidder was a limited company or a corporation. The bid documents were also to be accompanied by a copy of the Power of Attorney. The bidders were also required to furnish Memorandum of Articles of Association duly attested by a Public Notary.

4. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company, which will come under the word “Corporation”. The petitioner being a company can be duly represented in contract matters by its Director, in terms of Section 21 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013.

5. In the present case pertaining to the NIT dated 07.03.2025, for “construction of a Training Institute at Dhamdhama, Nalbari in Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Mode-I Basis”, the petitioner company was represented by its Director, who had signed the tender documents. However, the Director had not been given any Power of Attorney by the company, though there was a board resolution, authorising the Director to sign the bid documents.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the Director can represent a company in contractual matters, in terms of Section 21 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013, there was no requirement for the Director, who had signed the bid documents, to have a Power of Attorney. As such, no copy of a Power of Attorney had been furnished by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that Clause 20 of the “Information and Instructions for contractors for e-Bidding” provided the list of documents to be filled in by the bidders, scanned and uploaded within the period of bid submission. The said Clause 20 provided for various documents. However, Clause 20 did not make a mention of the requirement of furnishing a copy of the Power of Attorney or Memorandum of Articles of Association duly attested by a Public Notary. As such, the petitioner’s bid could not have been rejected, just because the Power of Attorney and Memorandum of Articles of Association had not been uploaded/furnished by the petitioner.

8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the registration of the petitioner as a company is granted only after verification of documents and credentials, including the Memorandum of Articles of Association made by the petitioner. The certificate of incorporation is also based on such Articles of Association. As the petitioner was already registered with the PWD (Building), Assam, there was no requirement for the petitioner