The court affirmed that technical disqualification in public tendering must not be hyper-technical if it does not affect the bidder's capacity to perform, emphasizing the importance of fair competition.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by a private limited company engaged in infrastructure development and construction. The petitioner formed a joint venture with M/s Kerala Rail Development Corporation Limited (K-Rail) for the purpose of participating in the tender proceedings notified by the Southern Railway, the 1st respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The said notification was in respect of a work 'Re-development of Chengannur Railway Station, Kerala, India on engineering procurement and Construction (EPC) Mode'. The Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) as stated in the tender document was for Rs.89,50,33,386/- and the project was to be completed within a period of 28 months.

2. As mentioned above, the petitioner formed joint venture with K-Rail, which is a company formed jointly by the Government of Kerala and the Ministry of Railways as per joint venture agreement dated 1.9.2016. The petitioner furnished all the necessary documents as contemplated under the tender documents before the 2^nd respondent. However, the respondents as per Ext.P12 communication by way of an e-mail, intimated the petitioner that “Your Techno-Commercial Bid against Tender No.12-CE-CN-ERS- 2025- EPC, which was due on 03-OCT-2025 15.00.00 Hrs has been found technically unsuitable due to following reasons:

Comments; Submission of bid not valid”

3. Exhibit P13 is the screenshot of the relevant pages from the portal of the respondents where it is mentioned that, the submission of bid of the petitioner was not valid. According to the petitioner, no reasons are conveyed, as to the disqualification and the respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding to finalize the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent, who is the only bidder qualified in the technical evaluation. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Exhibits P12 and P13 and seeking consequential relief to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to re-consider the petitioners technical bid and allow the petitioner to participate in the financial bid.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been submitted by the 1st and 2^nd respondents, wherein, the reasons that prompted the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to disqualify the petitioner in the technical evaluation process were highlighted. It is pointed out that, the petitioner failed to submit the relevant documents as contemplated in clause 2.11.2 of Ext.P1 tender documents. The deficiency in the documents of the petitioner, as highlighted in the counter affidavit was that, the copy of the resolution of the Directors of the Company in relation to the joint venture partner of the petitioner viz; K-Rail, was not produced, and instead, what is produced was the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors. Similarly, the decision taken in the minutes of the meeting could not have been accepted in view of the fact that, the same was not sufficient, as the said decision taken therein was to permit the person named therein, to act as attorney of the joint venture partner, to participate in any tender, either individually or along with a joint venture partner. Thus, according to the respondents 1 and 2, no specific authorization is seen reflected in such decision, to form a joint venture for the purpose of entering into a contract based on Ext.P1 tender notification. Apart from the above, it was contended that, as per the joint venture agreement entered into between the State Government and the Indian Railways, based on which the K-Rail was formed, it is stipulated that, for entering into a partnership or joint venture with an