The rejection of a technical bid based on minor documentation errors is arbitrary and undermines the principles of fairness and public interest essential for the tender process.

1. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of its technical bid by the respondent / Oil Corporation under the impugned orders both dated 08.06.2022.

2. The petitioner is a transport contractor. He has submitted his bid in the auction conducted by the respondent / Oil Corporation for appointment of transport contractors. Under the impugned orders, the petitioner's bid has been rejected during technical evaluation by the respondent / Oil Corporation for the reason "Bidder has striked off declaration - I stating NA in the attachment - 11". According to the respondent / Oil Corporation, the said declaration submitted by the petitioner is invalid as the petitioner has erroneously struck of the declaration by stating it is not applicable.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders both dated 08.06.2022, which is in respect of two tenders rejecting the petitioner's bid on the following grounds:
a) the impugned order of the second respondent is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice;
b) the second respondent failed to note that the declaration was filled up and uploaded;
c) the second respondent failed to note that the declaration sought in the query dated 02.05.2022 raised by the second respondent is a repetitive declaration, as the same has already been given by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the inadvertent act of striking off is only an insignificant error and not grave enough to reject the technical bid of the petitioner. However, it is the case of the respondent / Oil Corporation that the declaration is an essential requirement as part of the tender documents. According to them, even if assuming the said declaration is trivial in nature, being a high value tender, the petitioner ought to have been careful while submitting the tender documents and cannot blame his consultant for the defect. They would also contend that after scrutiny of the tender documents of the petitioner, a query was raised by the respondent / Oil Corporation on 02.05.2022, requesting the petitioner to submit the declarations as required under the tender document which includes declaration - ''I'', ''II'' and ''III'' (attachment - 11), which was the reason for rejection of the petitioner's bid under the impugned orders during technical evaluation made by the respondent / Oil Corporation. According to the respondent / Oil Corporation, despite the said query, the petitioner has not submitted the necessary declaration but instead has made an endorsement that the said declaration is not applicable (NA);
d) if the petitioner's bid is now accepted after its rejection under the impugned orders, it will lead to great ramification, as other bidders whose bids have been rejected pursuant to the technical evaluation, will also challenge the rejection before the appropriate Court;
e) The respondent is an Oil Corporation and therefore, any delay in the appointment of transport contractors will not be in public interest, as it would lead to disruption of petroleum products supply to various petroleum retail outlets.

4. Heard Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

5. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the impugned orders as well as to declaration - ''I'' (attachment - 11) which has been struck off by the petitioner as not applicable (NA). He would submit that the said declaration will come into effect only after the contract is awarded to the petitioner and therefore, according to him, the petitioner has rightly made an endorsement in the said declaration