JUDGMENT :

N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent, whereby the bid of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the integrity pact had not been uploaded along with the tender documents. A consequential prayer challenging the award of the contract to the respondent No.3 is also made.

2. The petitioner contends that the respondent had floated tenders for hiring of services for chemical dozing pumps for a period of four years at Mehsana. The petitioner contends that its bid made in relation to this work was rejected since it had not submitted the integrity pact as prescribed in the tender.

3. It is the contention that the petitioner that it is a registered vendor and that the registered vendors are not required to submit an integrity pact along with their tender bid. It is the case of the petitioner that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has entered into several contracts wherein the integrity pact has already been provided, apart from a common integrity pact, which had been submitted at the time of seeking registration as a Vendor.

4. It is submitted that the integrity pact is basically a commitment given in writing by the petitioner about its conduct with ONGC, and this has no direct or indirect bearing in relation to the execution of the contract which was relatable to hiring of services for chemical dozing pumps for a period of four years at Mehsana or in relation to the bid. It therefore submitted that rejection of the on the ground that it had not uploaded the integrity pact is without any substance.

5. Learned Advocate General Shri Kamal Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the respondent, contended that the requirement of uploading the integrity pact was applicable to all bidders and that no exception was made to registered vendors. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that if a specific term of the tender had not been complied with, the ONGC had no other option but to reject the bid.

6. In the light of these submissions, the only question to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether ONGC was justified in rejecting the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the integrity pact was not uploaded on the GeM portal at the time of submission of the bid.

7. As noticed above, the principal contention of the petitioner is that it was a registered vendor with the ONGC and therefore, there was no requirement of uploading an integrity pact.

8. This argument is based on the fact that the registration policy exempts registered vendors from uploading the integrity pact while bidding for a contract. Learned Counsel places reliance on the email dated 29.07.2025 issued by the ONGC Vendor Registration Team in support of his contention. In this email, he places reliance on the following term:

“Once registered, vendors will not be required to resubmit documents already approved during the registration process for future tenders, thereby simplifying and accelerating the tendering process.”

9. He submits that since at the time of registration the petitioner had, admittedly, furnished an integrity pact, which would apply to all the future tenders, there was no necessity for it to resubmit the said document.

10. In order to consider the submission, a reference to the terms and conditions of Vendor Registration, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-R4, would be necessary.

11. The preamble of the terms and conditions states as follows:

“ONGC use to purchase material and services of approximate annual value of Rs. 30 Crore. In order to streamline procurement of regular material and services, ONGC intends to embark the process of Vendor Registration for various categories of materials and services. Vendor Registration will lead to faster processing of the tenders as registered vendors will be exempted from submitting documents already approved during registration and reducing evaluation time. Approved documents will remain valid for all future ONGC tenders related to the same materials and service