Tender authorities have broad discretion in evaluating bids, and a failure to comply with mandatory document submission requirements justifies disqualification unless clear malice is shown.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of the following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing/setting aside the decision of the respondent BCCL dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure-4/1) vide which the said respondent has in a most arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal manner, declared the technical bid of the petitioner as Disqualified during the technical evaluation of the bids on the erroneous ground that the Undertaking submitted by the petitioner was not as per Annexure-IX of bid document as well as per clause 3.1 (p) of the Instructions to bidder as because in point no. 4 of the Undertaking submitted by the petitioner the names of the authorized representatives of both the partners were mentioned instead of the names of the partners which is out and out illegal and unlawful in view of the fact that such omission/error cannot be ground for disqualification of the technical bid in terms of Clause 19.2 (II) (H) which clearly states that if the confirmatory documents do not change eligibility status of the bidder in connection to his submitted information, then his bid will be accepted for opening of price bid and also on account of the fact that the said wrongful decision of the respondents costs huge loss to the State exchequer as because the petitioner had quoted the rate at 11.64% lower than the respondent no. 4 which is thoroughly not in public interest apart from being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India so far the petitioner is concerned.

(ii) For further issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent- authorities to declare the petitioner as technically responsive and thereafter open the financial bid of the petitioner in respect to the e-Tender Notice No. H- HEMM-95/E-Tender/2024/3135-3181 dated 14.12.2024 (as contained in Annexure-1) as the petitioner’s bid is about 11.64% lower than that of the respondent no. 4 and to further direct the respondents to allot the work and execute agreement with the Petitioner in respect of the aforesaid work.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Respondents 1 to 3 had invited an e-tender vide NIT No.BCCL/CMC/H-HEMM/95/e- Tender/2024/3135-3181 dated 14.12.2024 for execution of the work of “Hiring of HEMM for removal of Over Burden & Extraction and Transportation of coal and Jhama from XV, XIV, XIII, XII and XI seams with fire-fighting of dumped loose Over Burden of Hired HEMM Patch Phase-IV of Kendwadih Colliery, PB Area, BCCL”.

3. Pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Tender, 14 bidders participated in the Tender Process.

4. During technical evaluation of the bids, as per the provisions of the NIT/Tender Document the petitioner was asked to submit properly filled up copy of undertaking as per format given in Annexure-IX for Buyer Added specific ATC and shortfall document through GeM Portal.

5. However, the petitioner did not respond to the said notice within the stipulated time and, therefore, the Techno Commercial Assessment and evaluation of Technical Bid Cover-I was undertaken wherein the bid of the petitioner was not accepted and the petitioner was declared technically disqualified on account of following reasons:-

(i) Public Procurement (Preference to Make In India) for local supplier (Annexure-IX-A) as per Clause 3.1 (r) Buyer Added Bid Specific ATC (Instructions to Bidders), document was not found in order.

(ii) Undertaking as per IX of Bid Document in conformity with Clause 3.1(p) of the Buyer Added Bid Specific ATC (Instructi