Vidyasagar Vijaykumar Kamboj vs The State Of Maharashtra

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 697

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13598 OF 2025

VIDYASAGAR VIJAYKUMAR KAMBOJ Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS Respondent(s)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1206 OF 2025

O R D E R

1. Our order dated 22.08.2025 reads as under:-
“1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel has brought to our notice
something which we should not ignore.
3. This is a litigation in which the petitioner after offering
his bid in pursuance to the tender notice issued by the
respondent stood disqualified at the stage of technical
evaluation on the ground of his failure to produce the
certificate of the Competent Authority authenticating the
geo-tagging.
4. We take notice of clause XII of the Tender notice dated
9.5.2025, which reads thus:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.07.14
14:58:46 IST
Reason:
“XII Geo-Tagging
1) It shall be binding for all contractors to inspect
the work site area, quarry area and other
1

important site location before filling the tender,
contractor will do geo tagging himself.
2) The officers calling for the tender have fix any
5 (five) site location for Geotagging for effective
site visit (details of location visit will be made
available at the time of site visit)
3) The officers calling for the tender or
representative will be available during office
hours at the site location. During the period 3
working days before tender closing date
30.05.2025 from the site visit to carry out
procedure of geo-tagging effectively for
convenience office representative number is
given below. Mr. N.K. Kendre, City Engineer,
Latur City Municipal Corporation, Latur Mo. No.
9359638244.
4) The contractor himself or his authorized
representative shall carry out Geo tagging and
shall submit authority letter to the department.
The Declaration/Authority letter duly attested
with date and time of the site visit. The contractor
himself or his authorized representative shall
satisfy the representative officers calling for the
tender present at the site by giving his identity or
showing authentic identity card and shall keep
the procedure confidential (Annexure4).”
5. Sub clause 4 is relevant for our purpose as it provides
that the Contractor shall either himself or through his
authorised representative carry out geotagging and
would have to submit authority letter to the department
duly attested with date and time of the site visit. The later
part of Clause 4 provides that either the contractor himself
or through his authorised representative would have to
satisfy the representative officers calling for the tender
present at the site by giving his identity or showing
authentic identity card and shall keep the procedure
confidential.
6. Clause 4 referred to above does not seem to be happily
worded but still we have been able to understand the
requirement.
2

7. The learned counsel would submit that in the past also
the authorities deliberately failed or rather declined to
attest such declaration.
8. In the aforesaid context, we called upon the learned
counsel to show us the necessary averment made on oath
in this regard in the memorandum of the writ petition filed
before the High Court. In the Memorandum of the Writ
Petition filed before the High Court the petitioner herein
has made the following averments on oath in Paras 6, 7
and 8 respectively:-
“6. The petitioner states and submits that, the
petitioner has faced such discrimination in earlier
tender process issued by the respondent
authority in similar manner wherein the technical
bid of the petitioner was rejected for not
uploading duly signed and certified geo tagged
declaration letter. The petitioner being aggrieved
by the said disqualification and discrimination,
had filed a Writ Petition No. 11868/2024 before
this Hon’ble High Court which is pending
adjudication. This Hon’ble High Court was
pleased to issue notice to the respondent
authorities on 22.10.2024. Copy of order dated
22.10.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-’D’.
7. The respondent no. 2 had issued a E-tender
Notice27/2024-2025 dated 05.10.2024 for the
purpose of Construction and Development of Nala
at Ramrahim Nagar to Khadgaon
Smashanbhumi ring road under Maharashtra
Suvarna Jayanti Nagrothan Mahaabhiyan
(District Level) Yojana. Where the petitioner was
one of the bidder in the said tender process
amongst the 3 other agencies/bidders. To shock
and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent No.
2 have erroneously disqualified the present
petitioner with mala fide intention to favour the
other agencies. That the reason assigned for
disqualification was insufficient document.
Whereas the petitioner had visited the work site
area, did the Geo tagging and submitted the Geo-
Tagged photographs and its Geo tag certificate to
3

the respondent no. 3 for the Signature of the
authorities. And for that purpose, made an
application dated 11.10.2024 to the respondent
no. 3 requesting the authorities to sign the Geo-
Tagging Certificate. But the authorities with
malafide intention didn’t sign the Certificate
without the authorized signature of the
authorities. Copy of chart showing
disqualification dated 14.10.2024 alongwith
application dated 11.10.2024 and geo-tagged
photographs is annexed herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-’E’.
8. The petitioner states and submits that, total 4
bidders had participated in the tender process.
The technical bids were opened on 14/10/2024.
After evaluation and verification of the bids
submitted by all bidders the respondent No. 2
declared the petitioner as ‘noneligible’ vide
communication received via text message on the
mobile dated 14/10/2024. It is mentioned in the
said communication via text message that your
bid for the tender 2024_LMC_1106726_1 has
been rejected during technical evaluation by the
duly constituted committee Insufficient
Documents-NICSI. In the meantime, the financial
bids were opened by respondent No. 2 of the
bidders who were held eligible in the technical
bid evaluation. After opening the Financial Bid,
the respondent authorities had passed work
order in favour of another bidder.”
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that a very cryptic reply was filed by the
respondents while rebutting the averments made in the
memorandum of the writ petition, referred to above.
10. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are
inclined to issue notice.
11. Issue notice, returnable on 12.09.2025.
12. We clarify that any further steps taken as regards the
tender notice shall be subject to the final outcome of this
petition.
4

13. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner shall
serve one set of entire paper book to the learned counsel
Mr. Aaditya Pande, who are ordinarily appears for the
State of Maharasthra.”

2. Our order dated 10.11.2025 reads thus:-

“1. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent nos. 2-4 respectively that the petitioner
has failed to implead the successful bidder as a party
respondent. According to him the work order came to be
issued last year i.e. 15.10.2024. In pursuance of the
same, the successful bidder had started working.
2. The learned counsel further brought to our notice that
the work has been executed in accordance with the work
order.
3. He would further submit that nothing further is now
required to be done in the matter.
4. However, our order dated 22.08.2025 assumes some
significance insofar as clause XII of the Tender notice is
concerned.
5. Clause XII is with respect to Geo-Tagging. This
condition is very tricky as explained by us in our order
dated 22.08.2025. For this limited purpose we admit this
petition.
6. Exemption applications are allowed.
7. Leave granted.
8. Post it for final disposal in the month of January, 2026.”

3. Over a period of time, we have come across many litigations
wherein we noticed that at the stage of technical evaluation, a bid
offered by a particular party would stand rejected on the ground of
5

purported failure to produce a certificate of the competent
authority authorising geo-tagging. We are now very much sure that
this clause of geo-tagging in the tender document is proving to be
detrimental to the interest of a genuine bidder.
4. Geo-tapping of properties is assigning a unique latitude-
longitude to a property on GIS map by selecting current location
against any Unique Property Identification Code (UPIC) so that all
properties have their location identified against unique latitude-
longitude position.
5. The role of geo-tagging has gained prominence in public
tender agreements, with its aim being to enhance transparency,
accountability, and authenticity in the tendering process. The main
objective is to confirm that the bidder has genuinely inspected the
project site, understands the ground realities and local conditions,
and is aware of the nature, scope, and practical requirements of
the work before participating in the tender process. By using
geographical information, authorities seek to curb any form of
fraud that may arise. Due to the benefits of geo-tagging, it is
increasingly being adopted not only by government departments in
tender allotments but also in some prominent public welfare
schemes, such as, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, Pradhan Mantri
6

Gram Sadak Yojana, and Swachh Bharat Mission. Therefore, the
use of geo-tagging serves a public purpose and, if implemented
properly, can increase transparency in the public tender
allotments.
6. However, in reality, requirements of geo-tagging are applied
in an overly technical and arbitrary manner, causing the rejection
of bids in an unjustified way, though the bid may be largely
compliant with the conditions set out in the tender document. If a
tenderer fails to produce a certificate of the competent authority
authorising geo-tagging though he had applied for such a
certificate well in time, his tender cannot be rejected on this
ground. This is because having such a certificate is not in his hand.
If the tendering authority wants to eliminate a tenderer, all that is
required is to get such a certificate withhold. Therefore, all that is
required to be seen is whether the tenderer had applied for such a
certificate in time. If the tenderer had applied for such a certificate
well within time yet not issued, then it becomes a curable defect
which can be cured even at a subsequent stage.
7. Further, minor deviations of GPS coordinates, differences in
timestamps, or loss of metadata at the moment of upload are
considered by authorities as significant defects, making the entire
7

bid invalid. Such deviations cannot be a ground for
disqualification, technical or otherwise.
8. As discussed above, authorities either fail to sign or
intentionally delay the signing of the geo-tagging certificate or site
verification report, after which a bidder is later disqualified for non-
submission of the signed document, despite no fault on its part.
Such disqualification shall be invalid.
9. The lack of clear guidance about the application or method
for geo-tagging also represents a significant problem related to the
conditions of tendering. For example, in case the tender document
does not specify which application should be used for geo-tagging,
bidders act in accordance with common practice by employing a
certain application; however, later authorities reject photographs,
claiming that another application should have been used.
10. Such practices give excessive discretion to authorities who
decide on the acceptance or rejection of bids. This results in cases
of favouritism, subjectivity, and lack of transparency during the
tendering procedure.
11. Therefore, disputes relating to geo-tagging requirements are
increasingly reaching courts, where bidders allege misuse of
technical conditions in public procurement.
8

12. We are of the view that High Courts should remain vigilant
and see to it that there is no misuse of this particular clause of geo-
tagging in the tender document. The High Court in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction should also endeavour and try to read in between
the lines if a party alleges that injustice has been done on this
technical evaluation of geo-tagging. We say so because it is very
easy for the authorities to knock out a genuine bidder on such
flimsy ground and show undue favour to any dubious bidder. We
re-iterate what we have said in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above
respectively.
13. With the aforesaid, the Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition
stand disposed of.
14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
15. The Registry shall forward one copy each of this order to all
the High Courts.
……………………………………J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)



…………………………………..J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 07, 2026
9