The main legal point established in the judgment is that the wrongful alteration of tender forms and the provision of incorrect information can justify the summary dismissal of a tender. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of transparency and accuracy in tender submissions.

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant’s petition challenging the rejection of its tender. The official respondents held the appellant’s tender to be non-responsive inter-alia on the ground that it had not filled in as required and had instead sought to suppress the material particulars.

2. Respondent No.2 is the Central Public Works Department which invited the tenders for the construction of buildings. Respondent No.3 is the Executive Engineer of respondent No.2. Respondent No.4 has been awarded the contract by respondent Nos.2 & 3.

3. The petitioner (herein appellant) submitted its tender which was rejected by the official respondents communication dated 29.12.2016 impugned in the writ petition. The petitioner was held to be ineligible with the following remarks:-

Sr. No.	Name of bidder	Reasons for disqualification
1.	----	----
2.	M/s Girdhari Lal Construction Pvt. Ltd.	M/s Girdhari Lal Construction Pvt. Ltd. Is not found eligible as per provision of para 1.2 of section-II at page 32 of NIT because the form ‘C’ has been changed by modifying the column 11 to hide the factum of carrying out work on back to back basis and the paragraph-4 of letter of transmittal also provides disqualification because of incorrect information given in the forms.

The learned Judge rightly upheld the official respondents’ rejection of the appellant’s bid.

4. Section-II of the notice inviting tenders contains the “INFORMATION & INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA”. Clauses 1.2 and 10.1 thereof read as under:-

“All information called for in the enclosed forms should be furnished against the relevant columns in the forms. If for any reason, information is furnished on a separate sheet, this fact should be mentioned against the relevant column. Even if no information is to be provided in a column, a “nil” or “no such case” entry should be made in that column. If any particulars/query is not applicable in case of the tenderer, it should be stated as “not applicable”. The tenderers are cautioned that not giving complete information called for in the application forms or not giving it in clear terms or making any change in the prescribed forms may result in the bid being summarily disqualified. Tenders made by telegram or telex and those received late will not be entertained.”

“10.1 Bidder should furnish the following: -

(a) List of eligible similar nature of works successful completed during the last seven years in (Form “C”).

(b) Performance report of works referred to in form “C” --- In form “D”.”

Form-C required the bidders to furnish the information in 11 separate columns as under:-

“Form ‘C’

Details of eligible similar nature of works completed during the last seven years ending previous day of last date of submission of tenders:-

1	Sr. No.
2	Name of work/project and location
3	Owner of sponsoring organization
4	Cost of work in crores of rupees
5	Date of commencement as per contract
6	Stipulated date of completion
7	Actual date of completion
8	Whether EOT case decided-Yes/No, if yes with or without levy of compensation
9	Litigation/arbitration cases pending/in progress with details
10	Name and address/telephone number of officer to whom reference may be made
11	Whether the work was done on back to back basis-Yes/No.

Indicate gross amount claimed and amount awarded by the arbitrator.

5. The heading of column-11 was itself altered by the appellant. The heading in the form prescribed by the official respondents was “Whether the work was done on back to back basis-Yes/No”. The appellant was not entitled to change this heading to read “remarks”. This is not what the party inviting tenders namely the official respo