The rejection of a tender bid based on a non-essential requirement is arbitrary and violates principles of fair administrative action.

JUDGMENT :

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

Questioning the propriety in declaring IRCON-JPWIPL (JV), the opposite party No.4, a successful bidder upon evaluating the Financial Bid on 08.08.2025 vide Tabulation Statement of Financial Bids (Annexure-5) and assailing the legality of action of the Authority concerned (hereinafter be referred to as "Tendering Authority") in rejecting the Bid of the petitioner on 08.08.2025 (Annexure-4) on the ground "Extract of Board Resolution not attached" at the technical evaluation stage, the instant writ petition beseeching to invoke power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, reliefs are claimed with the following prayers:

"In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule NISI in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, call for the records, call upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why—

(1) The rejection dated 08.08.2025 vide Annexure-4 of the petitioner‘s technical bid shall not be quashed;

(2) The status assigned to the opposite party Nos.4 & 5 as L-1 and L-2 respectively pursuant to opening of financial bids vide Annexure-5 shall not be quashed;

(3) The petitioner shall not be declared the L-1 bidder for awarding the work under RfP dated 18.01.2025.

And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule Nisi absolute;

And further be pleased to pass any other appropriate order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper;

And allow this Writ Petition;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

Facts:

2. The petitioner, a Government of India Undertaking functioning under the Ministry of Railways having excellent track record in executing railway works, participated in Request for Proposal ("RfP", for brevity) dated 18.01.2025 issued by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3, East Coast Railway (Construction Organisation), inviting prospective bids for 'Setting up of Infrastructure facilities for Vande Bharat Express Major Maintenance Depot at Malatipatpur of Khurda Road Division of East Coast Railway‘

2.1. Though the documents as per specifications and requirements in the RfP the Bid was submitted, without any further intimation seeking clarification from the petitioner the same has been rejected on the ground that "Extract of Board Resolution not attached" vide Rejection Status uploaded on 08.08.2025.

2.2. It is affirmed by the petitioner that to furnish extract of Board Resolution is not at all a document asked for as essential condition of the RfP, dated 18.01.2025, i.e. documents comprising Technical and Financial Bids. The petitioner asserted that Clause 2.11(b) of the RfP requires a person having Power of Attorney for signing the Bid in the format given at Appendix-II to upload. The said Clause 2.11(b) refers to Appendix-II, which provides that the Power of Attorney should be executed by the person authorised by the Board Resolution of the Company. However, there is no mention that such Board Resolution should also be annexed along with the tender documents of the bidder. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that rejection of the Bid on 08.08.2025 is untenable, illogical and illegal and the basis of rejection on the ground/the reason stated above is not available in the RfP dated 18.01.2025.

2.3. It is submitted that in absence of any notice or grant of opportunity to explain, gross illegality as well as violation of principles of natural justice has been committed by the Tendering Authority in rejecting the Bid on the ground other than the tender conditions. It is further affirmed that the