Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
The law recognizes that bidders are responsible for understanding the grounds of rejection if they are aware of the circumstances or have been duly informed through other channels, and lack of formal notice does not automatically make the rejection illegal ["M/S. FUN WORLD AND RESORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - Madras"] ["Dhansiri Valley Oil Carrier, Borpathar VS Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited - Gauhati"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Mahavir Singh VS Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["MS SUPER CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"]- ["M/S. FUN WORLD AND RESORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - Madras"]- ["Manoj Kumar Verma vs Union of India - Calcutta"]- ["Technip Energies India Ltd. VS Union of India - Gauhati"]- ["Dhansiri Valley Oil Carrier, Borpathar VS Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited - Gauhati"]
In the high-stakes world of public procurement, bid rejections can spark heated disputes. A pivotal legal question often arises: judgment holding that if a bidder is aware about the ground of rejection of its bid even if formal communication of rejection of bid is not given to the bidder there is no illegality. Does informal awareness suffice, or is formal notice mandatory for legality? This blog dives into judicial interpretations, emphasizing transparency and fairness while drawing from key case law.
Procuring entities must balance confidentiality with bidder rights, as lapses can lead to litigation delays. We'll analyze core principles, landmark rulings, and practical insights to help bidders and authorities navigate these waters. Note: This is general information based on case precedents; it is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Transparency is the cornerstone of public procurement, ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrariness. Laws and guidelines typically require communicating rejection grounds to allow bidders to challenge decisions or improve future bids. However, courts have nuanced this: if a bidder already knows the grounds informally, the absence of formal communication may not render the process illegal.
As one court noted, the absence of reasons for bid rejection... breeds doubts and potential litigation. Shree Durga Industry vs Union of India - Delhi (2022)
Courts have examined this through specific cases, often referencing tender clauses like Instructions to Bidders (ITB).
In international competitive bidding, Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 state evaluation info remains confidential until contract award, after which unsuccessful bidders can request debriefing. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited VS National High Speed Rail Corporation (Nhsrcl) - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2802 The court held bidders retain post-rejection explanation rights within guidelines, implying pre-award limits on disclosure don't invalidate processes if awareness exists elsewhere.
Contrastingly, in a case disapproving non-disclosure, the court directed authorities to reveal reasons for transparency. When bidders lack awareness, challenging decisions becomes impossible, potentially making processes unfair. Shree Durga Industry vs Union of India - Delhi (2022)
Another ruling struck down a rejection for suppressing FIR details, deeming it virtual blacklisting without hearing, breaching natural justice. DVC’s stand reflects the mindset of making the petitioner pay for the alleged offence for all times to come. BLA Projects Private Limited VS Damodar Valley Corporation - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 162
Key to the issue: Rejections supported by record material (e.g., undisclosed agreements) are valid even if bidder unaware initially, provided subsequent disclosure occurs. O. K. Marine VS Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 240 If informally aware—like via minutes or interactions—formal notice omission may not taint legality, as the bidder can still respond.
In a technical bid rejection, the court limited review to stated grounds in minutes: ordinarily, it would not have been necessary for this Court to go beyond the ground of rejection stated in the minutes. Panesar Agriculture Industries (M/s.) Barnala v. State of Assam and Others - 2021 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 410 Awareness via records sufficed.
Broader precedents reinforce that awareness, formal or not, aligns with fairness:
These highlight: While formal notice ideal, proven awareness (e.g., via MoM, emails) often cures defects, avoiding illegality claims.
Risks of opacity: Annulments, as in cases where rejections deemed unreasonable without basis. GLOBALTECH ENVIRO EXPERTS PVT LTD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37930
In conclusion, while formal notice best practice, bidder awareness often suffices legally, per precedents. Procuring entities should prioritize clear communication; bidders, vigilant documentation. This fosters efficient procurement, minimizing litigation.
References:- J Kumar Infraprojects Limited VS National High Speed Rail Corporation (Nhsrcl) - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2802O. K. Marine VS Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 240Shree Durga Industry vs Union of India - Delhi (2022)Kanchan India Limited VS Karnataka Power Corporation Limited - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 191Tirupati Cement Products VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(Del) 4128BLA Projects Private Limited VS Damodar Valley Corporation - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 162Panesar Agriculture Industries (M/s.) Barnala v. State of Assam and Others - 2021 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 410Sandip Halder VS State Of West Bengal - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1269GLOBALTECH ENVIRO EXPERTS PVT LTD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37930Macpower CNC Machines Limited VS Union of India, Through Development Commissioner Ministry of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME)Cube Construction Engineering Ltd. VS National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. - 2019 Supreme(Del) 2353Project Director, RUIDP VS Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. - 2019 Supreme(Raj) 167S. P. Singla Constructions Private Limited VS Rail Vikas Nigam Limited - 2019 Supreme(Del) 1094
This analysis reflects provided case contexts; outcomes vary by facts.
#BidRejection #TenderLaw #Procurement
The plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that rejection of the bid was illegal. Merely by that, plaintiff could not have become entitled for consequential mandatory injunction for issuance of formal letter of allotment. Court while exercising judicial review could not have accepted the bid. ... given. ... Even if non-acceptance of the bid was by an incompetent authority, the court had no power to accept the bid a....
rejected on the ground that his name is not readable. ... Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 further submits that in the Diploma enclosed by petitioner with his bid, name of technical person proposed to be employed by him is not readable and the ground of rejection also clearly indicates so. ... As regards the second ground of rejection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the resolution passed by the bid ....
That apart, it is relevant to note that the petitioner is also aware of the rejection of the bid on 01.12.2025 itself. ... However, till 01.12.2025, the petitioner was never intimated and the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the financial bid and there is no written communication or formal order of rejection. ... Though the rejection was made on the ground that each page of the bid document has #HL_ST....
otherwise, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner - company's bid on this ground is misconceived on facts and law. ... If this declaration is not given along with the UNPRICED bid, the tender will be rejected as non-responsive.” ... There is no condition in the entire tender document that would entail rejection of the bid particularly, on the ground that is now projected as the reason for rejection of the #....
with the bid to justify that the bidder meets the Qualification criteria as given above. ... If a bid is not submitted in complete compliance with the terms and conditions of the tender document, then the bid is liable for rejection. ... Agarwal submits that the decision of Respondent No.2 to reject the bid of the Petitioners is replete with arbitrariness, mala fide, and illegality. He states that the rejection was....
Clause 2.3(ii) requires the bidder to declare previous transgressions, whether asked or not in a bid document, during the last 3 years or of being debarred by any other procuring entity. ... The petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on 15.11.2022 on “Administrative Ground”. The petitioner sought for the reasons of rejection by a letter dated 16.11.2022. The reply of the respondent dated 24.11.2022 is part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. ... The controversy in ....
Since, in the MoM dated 03-11-2020 only one ground for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner has been mentioned, ordinarily, it would not have been necessary for this Court to go beyond the ground of rejection stated in the minutes dated 03-11-2020. ... (supra) sole ground for rejection of the technical bid was that the bidder was not registered in the e-procurement portal. While interf....
Further it is submitted that the rejection of the appellant’s bid was devoid of reasons and on that ground the order ought to have been set aside by the learned Single Bench since even in the administrative decisions, reasons have to be recorded if such decision affects anyone prejudicially. ... In the present writ petition, the appellant sought for setting aside the order of rejection of the appellant’s bid on a technical ground and to cause fresh evaluation of the #....
In terms of Section 14(1) of the KTPP Act, the ground of the bid being rejected being on the higher side is not available. ... However, in the present case, even though the Petitioner has submitted a lowest bid, the said bid when compared to bids submitted in other cities is on a far higher rate and as such, the tender accepting authority would have a right to reject even the lowest bid and the lowest bid per se would not#....
Learned senior counsel Mr R.N Mathur for the petitioner further submitted that the rejection of the bid has been made on the ground that in respect of 4 other blocks, the bid received was more than 50% whereas for the block in question the bid received was only slight above the reserved price. ... The condition No.1.8 of the‘ Important Information’ given in the NIT specifically states that the State Government is not bound to select a bidder or to ap....
Such omission shall not be related to any aspect of the price of the Bid. Failure of the Bidder to comply with the request may result in the rejection of its Bid.”(emphasis supplied)
Requesting information or documentation on such non-conformities shall not be related to any aspect of the price of the Price Bid. Failure of the Bidder to comply with the request may result in the rejection of its Bid. Bidders shall provide price in each item in the manner and detail called for in the Price Schedules included in Section IV, Bidding Forms.
Clause 31 provides that in case a bidder is substantially responsive, the employer can waive non-conformities that do not constitute material deviation, reservation or omission and as per Clause 31.2, the bidder may be asked to submit such answer or documents within the reasonable period of time to rectify the non-material and non-conformities requirements. But non- conformities in the present case cannot be said to be non-material. It also provides that failure of the bidder to comply the request may result in rejection of its bid.
Requesting information or documentation on such nonconformities shall not be related to any aspect of the price of the bid. Failure of the Bidder to comply with the request may result in the rejection of its bid.
The bid evaluation committee may request the bidder to submit the necessary information or document like audited statement of accounts/CA Certificate, Registration Certificate, ISO/CMMI Certificates, etc. within a reasonable period of time. Failure of the bidder to comply with the request may result in the rejection of its Bid. However, document submitted by the bidder, shall not belong to the date after the last day of bid submission date.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
