Courts should defer to a tender authority's plausible interpretation of tender conditions unless vitiated by mala fides or perversity. Minor technical irregularities in ancillary or non-essential conditions do not warrant judicial interference or the disqualification of a bidder in commercial contracts.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, C.J.

1. Petitioner impugns the acceptance of Technical Bid of Respondent No. 5 consortium and seeks a direction to the tender inviting authority i.e. Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred as to “MPCSCL”) to consider petitioner’s bid being L-2 for execution of the work under Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) dated 03.09.2025 whereby offers were invited for sector-wise long route transportation, unloading and stacking of food grains.

2. MPCSCL had invited bids for sector-wise long route transportation and unloading of food-grains for the year 2025–2027. Petitioner M/s Zenith Transport Company, Respondent No. 5 M/s Urja Transport Company and one M/s Sona Transport Company participated by submitting their bids and after technical evaluation on 10.10.2025, all the bids were declared technically responsive. On 13.10.2025, financial bids were opened and respondent No. 5 M/s Urja Transport Company was declared as L-1, the petitioner and M/s Sona Transport Company as L-2 and L-3 respectively.

3. On 15.10.2025, petitioner submitted objections to the decision dated 10.10.2025 challenging the declaration of respondent No. 5 M/s Urja Transport Company as technically qualified on the ground that respondent no. 5 consortium had filed some documents of one member and other documents of another member. It was contended that as per Clause 4.3.1 of the NIT, documents of only one member, authorized by other members of the consortium, could be furnished, however only for the purpose of evaluation of turnover documents of all the members could be considered. It was contended that the respondent No. 5 consortium had submitted the requisite documents of Urja Transport Company except the documents pertaining to Provident Fund Account Number and ESIC Registration, which were of another member M/s Deep Transport Company, which was contrary to the term no. 4.3.1 of NIT and consequently, the bid submitted by respondent No. 5 was not compliant as per Clause 8.1 of NIT and could not be accepted.

4. It is contended that MPCSCL without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, proceeded to execute the contract with respondent No. 5. Challenging said action of MPCSCL, subject petition has been filed seeking a direction to MPCSCL to declare the bid of respondent No. 5 as non-responsive and to award the contract to the petitioner being L-2 bidder.

5. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the bid of respondent No. 5 has been accepted arbitrarily in violation of Clause 4.3.1(a) and Clause 8.1 of the NIT by accepting the Provident Fund Account Number and ESIC Registration Certificate of Deep Transport Company, whereas other documents, were of Urja Transport Company, which could not be accepted in view of the aforesaid clauses, which provide that for technical evaluation of the bid submitted by consortium cumulative turnover of all the constituent members would be considered however, all the requisite documents for technical evaluation should be of one constitute member authorized by rest of the members of the consortium.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that NIT was issued for composite work of transportation, unloading and stacking and as per Clause 5.9 of NIT, the tenderer must comply with all technical qualification and Clause 6 mandates that all the documents as per Annexure-IV, which includes EPF Account Number and ESIC Registration Certificate, should be furnished along with the bid document. Providing of PF Account Number and ESIC Registration Number were mandatory as per Clause 7.1 of NIT. Clause 5.11 provides that consolidated bid ought to be submitted in respect of transportation as well as unloading and stacking. He further submits that though respondent No. 5 submitted a composite bid, but submitted documents of two different members of the consortium, which could not be accepted.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the re