Facts of the Case

This is a public-works tender dispute, not a GST case — GST Registration was simply one of many standard bid documents required (alongside PAN, Income Tax returns, EMD, experience certificates, and solvency certificates). Two connected writ petitions challenged the technical-bid disqualification of two consortia of contractors (petitioners) in a Rs. 148.95-crore NABARD (RIDF-XXVIII)-funded tender for widening and strengthening the Rajupalem-Amaravathi road in Guntur district, floated by the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Department. Petitioner No. 1 was disqualified for failing to upload one of eleven required experience certificates (attributed to a computer operator's error, rectified by a later representation); Petitioner No. 2's disqualification (over a solvency certificate defect) was not pressed at the hearing. The contract was ultimately awarded to Respondent No. 4.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the tendering authority was obligated to seek clarification from a bidder regarding a document it had failed to upload altogether (as opposed to a defect in an uploaded document).
  2. Whether the disqualification of Petitioner No. 1's technical bid, and the subsequent award to Respondent No. 4, was arbitrary or illegal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Petitioner No. 1 possessed sufficient experience overall but, due to a computer operator's mistake, had failed to upload one of eleven experience certificates; on discovering this at the technical-bid stage, it promptly submitted the missing certificate by representation, which the authorities ignored.
  • Under the tender conditions, the authorities were obligated to seek clarification from bidders on technical proof of documents before rejecting a bid.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Under the special conditions, the authorities were not required to seek clarification for documents that were never uploaded at all (as distinct from clarifying an ambiguity in an uploaded document); bids had to be submitted online, complete, within the stipulated time, and the petitioner's belated submission (after bid opening) could not be accepted.
  • The work had already been awarded to and commenced by Respondent No. 4, and cancelling the process at this stage would cause the State additional cost and public-interest harm.

Court Order / Findings

  • Applying settled Supreme Court principles on limited judicial review of tender matters (Tata Cellular, Silppi Constructions, Uflex, N.G. Projects), the Court held that evaluating authorities are not obligated to seek clarification for a document the bidder failed to upload altogether, and that the petitioner's belated representation (filed after the technical bids were opened) could not cure the deficiency.
  • Finding no perversity, patent illegality, or irrationality in the decision-making process, and noting the tender had already been awarded and work had commenced, the Court held interference would cause additional cost and public-interest harm.
  • Both writ petitions were dismissed — WP No. 13821 of 2023 on merits as to Petitioner No. 1, and as not pressed as to Petitioner No. 2; WP No. 13590 of 2023 was also dismissed as the tender process stood completed.

Important Clarification

No GST law question arose or was decided. This is a tender-law precedent confirming that courts will not second-guess a technical evaluation committee's rejection of a bid for a missing (as opposed to defective) mandatory document, particularly once the contract has been awarded and work has commenced.

Sections Involved

  • NABARD (RIDF) tender conditions and Notice Inviting Tender clauses governing technical bid evaluation (contractual, not statutory)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioners. Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the tender award to the successful bidder was upheld.

Case Details

Court: High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No.: Writ Petition Nos. 13821 and 13590 of 2023 (common order)
Coram: Justice V. Sujatha
Date of Judgment: 28 June 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.