The court ruled that rejection of bids on technicalities lacking a Board resolution is arbitrary, given guidelines on acceptable authorizations under tender conditions.

JUDGMENT :

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

All the Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)Nos.5282 to 5285 of 2026, dated 04.03.2026.

2. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Appeals is one and the same, we are inclined to dispose of the same by a common judgment.

3. Writ Petitioners are the unsuccessful bidder. The successful bidders have filed Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.405, 406, 419 & 420 of 2026. The tendering authority viz, the Deputy Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer has filed four Writ Appeals in W.A. (MD)Nos.401 to 404 of 2026.

4. The above said Writ Petitions have been filed by the unsuccessful bidders/Writ Petitioners challenging the rejection of the technical bids on the ground that tender documents were submitted by a power of attorney holder, who had been authorised only by the Committee of the company and not by the Board of Directors. The tendering authority issued four tender notifications dated 31.10.2025 for the works relating to interlocking arrangements in the Railway Crossings. As per the tender notice, the last date and time for submission of tender is 02.12.2025 before 15 hours and the opening of the technical bid (Packet-I) was scheduled to be on 02.12.2025 after 15 hours. The unsuccessful bidder/Writ Petitioner submitted the bids through a power of attorney holder. According to them, after successfully performing several contracts, they submitted their bid in the tenders. Upon opening the technical bids, the same were rejected by the tendering authority only on the ground that power of attorney holder has been authorised only by the resolution of Committee and not by resolution of Board of Directors. The said rejections have been challenged by the unsuccessful bidders through the above Writ Petitions.

5. The learned Single Judge, considering the fact that a resolution of the Board of Directors is not an essential requirement, and further noting that, as per Clause 15 of the tender notification, the tender inviting authority has the discretion to seek clarification with regard to any deficiency in the documents enclosed along with the bids, held that the authority had the right to call upon any bidder for clarification of its bids. The authority, however, failed to exercise such discretion and did not call upon the writ petitioners to furnish the resolution of the Board of Directors. The learned Single Judge further held that non-production of the resolution of the Board of Directors is a curable defect and cannot be construed as failure to comply with an essential requirement. Consequently, it was held that the rejection of the technical bids submitted by the unsuccessful bidders/writ petitioners is arbitrary and unsustainable. Accordingly, the rejection orders were set aside, and the tendering authority/appellants in W.A.(MD) Nos. 401 to 404 of 2026 were directed to accept the technical bids submitted by the unsuccessful bidders/writ petitioners and to proceed to open the financial bids in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the tender notification. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, the tenderin