A bid must fully disclose prior terminations and debarments; failure to do so invalidates qualification under tender conditions.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of Respondents 3, 4 and 5 in qualifying the 6th Respondent in respect of Tender dated 15.05.2025, which, according to Petitioner, is contrary to Annexure-XIX and XX and the instructions at page 138 of the Tender Notice. Petitioner, therefore, seeks to declare the said action as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the tender conditions, and consequently to set aside the qualification of the 6^th Respondent in the above tender process.

2. Petitioner states that the 6th Respondent did not comply with the said requirements, having failed to disclose crucial information that directly affects determination of its eligibility, therefore ought to have been disqualified at the threshold. It is stated, on 15.05.2025, the 5^th Respondent issued e-tender calling for bids for a comprehensive, large-scale turnkey BOOT (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer) project involving the establishment of a 20 TPD mechanized laundry at Secunderabad. The scope of the project included washing, cleaning, drying, pressing, packaging and supply of linen for AC coaches of trains maintained at Secunderabad as well as transportation of soiled linen to the laundry and delivery of washed and packaged linen to designated locations. The contract was to be executed over a period of ten years, with an estimated total value exceeding Rs. 434 crores and an annual value of approximately Rs. 43.47 crores. The tender was designed as a two-packet system, requiring bidders to submit eligibility documents in the first packet and price bids in the second. Only those bidders, who were found compliant with the eligibility requirements in the first packet were to be declared qualified on the GeM portal and proceeded to financial evaluation.

2.1. Petitioner states further, 21.06.2025 was the last date prescribed for submission of bids. Upon examination of the eligibility documents, the Tender Committee declared Petitioner and the 6^th Respondent as qualified on 26.07.2025. Thereafter, on 30.07.2025, financial bids were opened, and the 6th Respondent was declared L1, while Petitioner declared L2. It is also stated, the tender contained detailed instructions outlining the list of documents required for consideration of eligibility. These included various mandatory declarations which were required to accompany the bid without exception. The instructions unequivocally stipulated that failure to upload any mandatory document would result in outright rejection of the bid. Among these mandatory declarations were Annexure XIX, which required the bidder to affirm the truthfulness of all statements made in the bid, and Annexure XX, which required the bidder to declare whether it had ever been debarred from participating in tenders by Railways, PSU or State Government. Petitioner asserts that compliance with these declarations was essential determining the eligibility of bidders, and any deficiency rendered the bid liable rejection.

2.2. Petitioner contends that the 6^th Respondent failed to comply with these requirements. According to Petitioner, the 6^th Respondent did not disclose that its contract with Northern Railway had been terminated and that it had been debarred from participating in tenders floated by that Railway. Such undisclosed information was crucial for assessing the eligibility of the 6^th Respondent and that suppression of such material facts amounts to a clear violation of mandatory tender conditions. On 21.06.2024, Northern Railway terminated the contract awarded to the 6^th Respondent under a GeM procurement and simultaneou