ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The following reliefs have been sought in the present writ application:-

“(i) For set aside and quashing the impugned order of disqualified the Tender No. 120154 vide Ref. No. NIT-1 (2025-26) and also set aside the Tender No. 120159 vide Ref. No. NIT-2 (2025-26) (Annexure-P-04).

(ii) For issuance of a Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to restore the Tender No. 120154 and 120159 of petitioner on account of her fulfill all criteria of the terms and conditions for allotment of work by way of this tenders, and also allotted the work tender to the petitioner on her high percentage in the larger interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, claiming to be the proprietor of Rudra Construction, a Class-IV contractor registered under the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, bearing Registration No. 252700382, and eligible to undertake government works up to Rs. 25,00,000/-, participated in the tender process initiated by the Education Department, Government of Bihar for renovation work in the Principal and Staff Quarter of the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Chhatauni, Motihari, East Champaran pursuant to Tender No. 120154 (Ref. No. NIT-1 (2025-26)) and Tender No. 120159 (Ref. No. NIT-2 (2025-26)) issued on 17.12.2025. The petitioner submitted her bids online on 26.12.2025 at 05:06 PM for Tender No. 120154 and at 05:23 PM for Tender No. 120159 and claims that in the comparative statement of bidders she had quoted the highest percentage, namely 22.10% and 17.70% respectively. However, the respondent authorities disqualified the petitioner’s technical bids through an e-mail communication on the ground that the petitioner had failed to comply with certain mandatory terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and had not submitted several requisite documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly participated in the tender process and had submitted all the requisite documents in terms of the conditions of the NIT. It is submitted that despite complying with the eligibility criteria, the petitioner’s technical bid has been declared non-responsive by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the principles adopted for rejecting the petitioner’s bid have not been applied uniformly in the case of other bidders and they have been declared responsive.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner’s bid was rejected after due scrutiny of the documents submitted by her and upon finding that the petitioner had failed to comply with several mandatory requirements of the NIT. It is submitted that the petitioner did not furnish the requisite documents as required under the tender conditions (clauses 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14) as well as Clause 17 of the NIT, and therefore her technical bid was rightly declared non- responsive. In this regard, learned counsel for the State has referred to paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit, wherein the reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s bid have been specifically stated. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

“8. That in response to the averment made in paragraph no.-10 of the writ petition, it is stated and submitted that the petitioner has made wrong statement that the respondents have arbitrarily disqualified the petitioner's Tender in this regard, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has failed to submit the Tender form as per the terms and conditions of N.I.T. i.e.

I. An Attested copy of GST Registration certificate and 2024-25 monthly return of GSTR-3B having 1 Cr. Turnover.

II. An attested copy of certificate of Annual turn over 1 Cr. of last 2 financial year i.e. 2023-24 and 2024-25.

III. An attested copy of certificate of ISO9001-2015

IV. A copy of work order/copy of contract agreement/completion certific