Tender bid qualifications must adhere strictly to stated requirements; courts generally defer to the owner's interpretation unless found arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Approach to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made seeking the following relief:

“In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, issue Rule, calling upon the Respondent authorities to show cause as to why the writ, order or direction, as prayed for shall not be issued and upon hearing the parties on the cause or causes that may be shown and on perusal of the records be pleased to grant to the Petitioner the following relief/reliefs:-

1. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Impugned Letter dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition) and directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner as qualified;

2. Direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to not open the financial bids, scheduled for opening on 12.01.2026, till the pendency of the present writ petition;

3. Direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the Petitioner's bid in case the financial bids are opened.

4. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Pending disposal of the Rule, staying the Impugned Letter dated 03.01.2026 or any consequential orders thereto (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition) and directing the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to not open the financial scheduled for opening bids, on 12.01.2026, till the pendency of the present writ petition and/or be pleased to pass such order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

2. The facts, as projected by the petitioner which are relevant to the determination of the lis in question can be stated briefly as follows.

3. The respondent no. 2 - Numaligarh Refinery Limited (herein after NRL), through the respondent no. 3 had floated a Notice Inviting Tender on 25.07.2025 for the work “Balance of Plant Works for LPG Marketing Terminal”. As per the requirement of the notice, a bidder was required to be technically qualified whereafter his commercial bid would be taken into consideration. The petitioner which claims to be technically qualified had submitted its bid, which however was held to be non-responsive. The said action was the subject matter of challenge in a proceeding initiated in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which was however, disposed of on 31.12.2025 directing consideration and disposal of the representation of the petitioner which was said to be pending. The said representation was rejected vide an e-mail dated 03.01.2026 which is the subject matter of the present challenge, for which, the relief as stated above, has been prayed for. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that such rejection of the bid of the petitioner on the technical ground has been done without any application of mind, arbitrarily and with a mala fide intention.

4. I have heard Shri M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri S. Khound, learned counsel and Shri P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. S. Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondent no. 1, Shri A. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Shri J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Saha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

5. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the tender document itself had laid down clearly the aspect as to how a bidder would be deemed to be technically qualified. He has submitted that the petitioner fulfills the said criter