Procurement authorities must provide valid, contemporaneous justifications for bid rejections and cannot introduce new reasons during litigation. Minor technical oversights, such as inadequate stamp duty, are curable and do not justify the arbitrary disqualification of a tenderer, upholding the standards of fair and transparent procurement practices.

JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court by the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Kumar Singh and Kazim Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has made the following main prayers:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned rejection of the Techno-Commercial Bid (Technical Bid) of the Petitioner, submitted in furtherance of Tender No.EPC-PSI-GKC-CHPG-NER, dated 30.09.2025, floated by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 1 - as communicated to Petitioner vide e-mail dated 19.05.2026 sent at 17:30 by the Respondent No. 2);

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned opening of financial bids, as notified on 19.05.2026 at 19:59:57 hours, i.e., within a span of three hours after the Petitioner was informed via impugned email regarding the rejection of its technical bid. (contained as Annexure No. 2);

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to re-evaluate the Techno-Commercial Bid (Technical Bid) of the Petitioner, submitted in furtherance of Tender No. EPC-PSI-GKC-CHPG-NER, dated 30.09.2025, floated by the Respondent No. 2;

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to not proceed in furtherance of tender process including declaration, execution and issuance of work order in favour of L-1 or any other consequential action in the tender process."

4. The bid of the petitioner had been rejected on the technical ground that it "did not fulfill the eligibility criteria". In the said impugned e-mail dated May 19, 2026, nothing further had been stated, as had been pointed out by us in our earlier order dated May 26, 2026. Thus, while staying the earlier tender process as no further action had been taken by the authority after opening of the financial bid, we also directed the respondents to provide a copy of the reasoned order, within 24 hours to the petitioner.

5. Subsequently, on May 26, 2026, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a further explanation was provided by the North Eastern Railway, wherein it was submitted as follows:-

"As pr our tender conditions and as per the legal opinion of North Eastern Railway/Gorakhpur Legal Cell obtained in similar instances, the stamp paper for the Bank Guarantee should have been as per UP Stamp Act. However, you have not submitted the Stamp Paper of the requisite amount. Therefore, there was a legal lacuna in considering your case. In our tenders, rejection on this ground has been done for all non conforming tenders on this count."

6. Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that adequacy of stamp duty is a curable defect and the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State and time and again the Courts have held that the provision of Stamp Act has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponent. To buttress his aforesaid argument, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. M/s. Dalip Construction Company reported in (1969) 1 SCC 597.

7. It has been next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf o