The rejection of a tender bid due to non-compliance with stipulated document submission requirements upholds lawful administrative discretion.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, C.J.

The present writ petition is taken out by L-1 bidder seeking to quash the order dated 15^th May, 2025 issued by the Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Sunabeda whereby and wherein the bid of the petitioner was cancelled having not complied with the requirements within the stipulated time.

2. Shorn off unnecessary, details the facts which can be reasonably discerned from the pleadings proceeds that pursuant to floating of e-procurement notice by the Chief Construction Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Sunabeda on 26^th June, 2024 for building works, i.e., construction of 100 seated Boys Hotel (G+2) at Government I.T.I., Nandapur in the district of Koraput for the year 2023-24, the petitioner offered the bid and was declared as the lowest bidder. Though it is indicated that the time for completion of the said tender process was extended from time to time, but the pith and substance which we could reasonably be gathered from the pleading that the petitioner was adjudged as the lowest bidder and therefore became entitled to the said tender.

2.1. The conditions stipulated in the tender document provides for the submission of several documents including the bank guarantee and the execution of a formal agreement within the time as indicated therein. Admittedly, after the petitioner was found the lowest bidder, a letter dated 21st February, 2025 was issued to the petitioner to attend the office within seven days from the date of the issuance of the said letter for drawal of the agreement along with the documents disclosed therein. It was expressly indicated in the said letter that in the event of default of compliance as mentioned therein, the tender may be liable for rejection.

2.2. The aforesaid cautionary note appears twice in the said letter but despite the content of the said letter having communicated, there is no attempt on the part of the petitioner to attend the office to execute the formal agreement along with the aforementioned documents. It is expressly pleaded in the writ petition that since one of the requisite formality required for drawal of an agreement is of furnishing the bank guarantee, the time was consumed by the banker and immediately after obtaining the bank guarantee, the authorities were apprised of the said fact and the prayer was made to fix a date on which a formal agreement could be executed. The record reveals that the letter was issued by the petitioner on 11^th March, 2025 wherein the petitioner asked for the requisite bank accounts details which the banker of the petitioner required for the bank guarantee.

3. According to the petitioner despite such letter having received, no details were given by the authorities but after obtaining the same from other sources, the bank issued a bank guarantee on 13^th March, 2025 in favour of the authority, yet after receiving the bank guarantee, no formal letter for execution of the agreement was communicated to the petitioner.

3.1. Further, the letter calling upon the authorities to execute the document as all the requisite information or the documents to be furnished are at the disposal of the petitioner but to the surprise of the petitioner a letter was received on 26^th March, 2025 intimating that since the petitioner miserably failed to submit all the documents within the time indicated in the said letter dated 21^st February, 2025, his bid was liable to be cancelled and in fact, the notice was for cancellation of the said bid. After receipt of the said letter dated 26th March, 2025, immediately the petitioner wrote to the authorities on 27^th March, 2025 indicating that the petitioner was not at default and therefore he may be permitted to execute the said work.

3.2. Subsequent thereto a letter dated 15^th May, 2025