AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr L.C.N. Shahdeo, who appears with Mr Yash Raj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Vibhor Mayank, learned AC to AG, for the respondents.
The petitioner challenges the Tender Committee’s decision dated 27.07.2026, which rejected the petitioner’s bid on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement in Clause 4.5 (B) (a) of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) during the Technical Evaluation round for the tender for the construction of Degree College at Latehar.
Mr Shahdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner made a mistake in the notarised document listing the critical equipment necessary for compliance with the tender conditions. He submitted that instead of referring to the maximum age of the equipment as on 01.01.2026, reference was made to the maximum age as on 01.01.2025. He submitted that this was purely a typographical error and, based upon the same, the petitioner’s technical bid should not have been rejected.
Mr Shahdeo submitted that the petitioner, as on the last date of submission of the bids, possessed the critical equipment prescribed under the SBD. He submitted that within two days, i.e., on 29.07.2026, a representation to this effect was also made to the respondents to this effect. Accordingly, he submitted that the rejection of the technical bid only due to a minor typographical error in the notarised affidavit submitted by the petitioner would not be proper and, in fact, would be illegal and arbitrary.
Mr Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that this is a clear case of non-compliance with the SBD. He submitted that the defence of typographical error cannot be accepted in such matters and, in any event, the same is an afterthought. He submitted that even in the representation of 29.07.2026, there was no reference to any typographical error. Instead, the petitioner admitted not having the critical equipment but offered an undertaking to acquire the same as and when required. Accordingly, Mr Vibhor Mayank submitted that this petition ought to be dismissed.
The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
In this case, the petitioner’s bid has been rejected for non-compliance with Clause 4.5 (B) (a) of the SBD, which reads as follows:-
“4.5B. Each bidder should further demonstrate (a) availability (either owned or leased or by procurement against mobilization advances) of the following key and critical equipment for this work:
NOTE: (To be indicated for bids valued over Rs. 2.5 Crore)
Based on the studies, carried out by the Engineer the minimum suggested Major equipment to attain the completion of works in accordance with the prescribed construction schedule are shown in the Annexure-I
The bidders should, however, undertake their own studies and furnish with their bid, a detailed construction planning and methodology supported with layout and necessary drawings and calculations (detailed) as stated in clause 4.3(C) above to allow the employer to review their proposals. The numbers, types and capacities of each plant/equipment shall be shown in the proposals along with the cycle time for each operation for the given production capacity to match the requirements.”
The petitioner, purportedly in compliance with the requirement under the above-referred clause, filed a duly notarised affidavit, which is at Annexure-6 (page 141 of the paper book of this petition). In the affidavit, the petitioner referred to the maximum age of the equipment possessed by the petitioner as on 01.01.2025. The SBD and the prescribed form, which form part of the SBD, required bidders to provide details of the critical equipment possessed by the petitioner, including their maximum age as on 01.01.2026, not 01.01.2025. As per the duly notarised affidavit submitted by the petitioner, the critical equipment possessed by the petitioner was at least a year older than required under the tender condition. Based on the declaration in the petitioner’s affidavit, there was nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the respondents’ rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid.
The argument that there was a typographical error in the notarised affidavit in mentioning the date of 01.01.2025 instead of 01.01.2026 is clearly in the nature of an afterthought. The solemn submission was made that after the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on 27.07.2026, the petitioner made a representation on 29.07.2026 pointing out the error. The representation dated 29.07.2026 refers to no error, whether typographical or otherwise. There is also nothing on record to show that the duly notified affidavit was corrected.
On the contrary, the representation dated 29.07.2026 ( at Annexure-10, Page 191of the paperbook), far from raising any issue of error or typographical error, proceeds to offer an undertaking that if any equipment is required in terms of the SBD, then, as and when the same is required, the same would be procured by the petitioner. This is in fact an admission that the petitioner did not possess the critical equipment as of the last date for submission of the tender bids.
In any event, serious deficiencies of this nature cannot be wished away or explained by styling the same as mere typographical errors. In this case, from the contemporaneous document on record, the plea of typographical error is clearly in the nature of an afterthought and cannot be accepted. For the non-compliance with a mandatory term of the SBD, the tender evaluation Committee was justified in rejecting the Petitioner’s technical bid. There was no arbitrariness or unreasonableness involved.
For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the petitioner’s bid was correctly rejected and there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness involved in the rejection of such bid. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs.