Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAJESH SHANKAR
SMCC-SSC (JV) – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed regarding bid disqualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on bid rejection's arbitrariness. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on tender evaluation process. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court's analysis on compliance with tender requirements. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final decision dismissing the writ petition. (Para 32 , 33) |
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 mentione
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.
The court affirmed that adherence to tender conditions is mandatory, and disqualification for non-compliance does not violate principles of natural justice.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
Technical bid non-responsive for missing mandatory physical affidavit; no evaluation or appeal period applies; limited judicial interference in tenders.
The court emphasized that the purpose of scrutinizing a tender document should not be to unreasonably disqualify an otherwise qualified bidder, as it would curtail competition and not be in the publi....
The court affirmed that compliance with essential tender conditions is mandatory, and failure to meet these conditions justifies disqualification.
Tender evaluations should not disqualify bidders on minor technicalities that do not affect the integrity of the bid, emphasizing fairness in public procurement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
