IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 Kamal Phool .......Petitioners Versus Food Corporation of India and others ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior Advocate with Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Abhav Sharma, Advocate for respondents-FCI.

LISA GILL, J.(Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting-aside order dated 03.12.2025 whereby technical bid submitted by petitioner has been rejected as well as setting-aside order dated 15.12.2025 whereby appeal filed by petitioner against this rejection has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that consequent to floating of tender dated 04.11.2025 for appointment of a Handling and Transport Contractor (HTC) for a two-year period at FCI, Tara Taran Center, petitioner being fully eligible and qualified submitted the tender. However, his tender was rejected on 03.12.2025 with the following comment:-

“Bidder has not uploaded Award letter of experience furnished certificate furnished by him. As per MTF Appendix VI The award letter of the contract is to be attached by the bidder. And as per MTF clause 8 b Tender Document except price bid alongwith supporting documents duly signed have to be scanned and uploaded at the requisite places in the GeM Portal. h Tender which do not comply with these instructions shall be summarily rejected. Hence the bidder is technically disqualified.”

3. Petitioner immediately filed appeal and raised grievance on 04.12.2025 itself and attached the relevant documents along-with appeal. However, its appeal was dismissed by Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 15.12.2025 and the respondent proceeded to open financial bid on the same day in violation of Clause-XVIII (c) of terms and conditions of the tender. Aggrieved thereof, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that submission of said document in question, i.e award letter of contract, is not one of the necessary documents to be appended. Non-submission of this document cannot lead to summary rejection of petitioner’s tender. Moreover, experience certificate was duly attached by petitioner along-with appeal filed by it. Reference is made to Clause-VIII of terms and conditions of the tender to submit that submission of award letter of contract is not mandatory and is merely directory in terms of Clause-III of terms and conditions of tender. It is, thus, prayed that present writ petition be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for respondents, on advance notice, has refuted the arguments, as advanced, while submitting that petitioner was mandatorily enjoined upon to furnish award letter of contract as is specifically provided in Appendix-VI. Petitioner was under a duty to have furnished experience details in the proforma prescribed in Appendix-VI, as is provided in Clause-III of terms and conditions of the tender. Moreover, it is specifically provided in Clause-XVIII that no new document would be accepted along-with appeal which may be filed by the aggrieved person. It is further pointed out that even with the appeal, it was not the award letter of contract which was attached by petitioner but experience certificate(s) only.

Dismissal of the writ petition is sought.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file with their able assistance.

7. Floating of tender dated 04.11.2025; submission of bid by petitioner; its rejection vide order dated 03.12.2025 as well as dismissal of appeal filed by petitioner challenging rejection of its technical bid are all a matter of record.

8. At the outset, it is relevant to refer to Clause 3 of the Terms and Conditions, which reads as under:-

“3. Qualification conditions of Tender:-

(i) Tenderer should have experience obtained from Manufacturer/PSU/Govt. Dept./Public Ltd. Company/Private Limited Compan