M/S SAIDHAM SUPER SERVICES SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010158762026
WPMB/739/2026

M/s Saidham Super Services Solutions
Private Limited
--Petitioner

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Addl. C.S.C.
for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has sought the following reliefs :-
(i) Issue a writ, order or directions in the
nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
17.08.2026 declaring the otherwise
technically responsive bid of the petitioner as
non-responsive. (In Ref: Annexure No. 1 @
Page No.32).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to open the financial bid of the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with the provisions contained in
the SBD.”
3. The technical bid of the petitioner was
declared to be non-responsive on the
following ground :-
“As per NIT-04/SE/2026-27, Original
EMD and Tender Fee not submitted.”

4. Perusal of the impugned order dated
17.08.2026 reveals that total three bids were
received pursuant to NIT issued on
18.07.2026 and after rejection of petitioner's
technical bid, the other two bidders
remained in the fray.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that there was no condition in the
NIT that every bidder has to submit the
EMD and tender fee through bank draft in
physical form.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel, on
instruction, submits that the
Superintending Engineer, Project Circle,
Dehradun, issued a corrigendum dated
01.08.2026, whereby all the prospective
bidders were informed that they will have to
submit bid security including earnest money
deposit through bank draft by speed post
and last date for submission of Bid was also
extended to 13.08.2026.
7. He also submits that petitioner alone
did not submit the bank draft regarding bid
security in physical form on or before the
deadline fixed for that purpose, while other
two bidders submitted bid security including
EMD, through bank draft well within time,
therefore, petitioner's technical bid was
rightly rejected due to non-compliance of the
condition mentioned in the corrigendum.

8. Learned State Counsel further submits
that there are certain other lacunas in the
technical bid of the petitioner. However, we
are not concerned with other lacunas
because the technical bid of the petitioner is
rejected only on the ground that original
EMD and tender fee was not submitted.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a judgment rendered by
Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No.
90 of 2025. The said judgment, however, is
distinguishable on facts and it does not deal
with the condition of submission of EMD
and tender fee through bank draft in
physical form. The condition of submission
of bid security or EMD (Earnest Money
Deposit) through physical copy of bank draft
is meant to rule out participation of non-
serious bidders in the tender process.
Therefore, such condition cannot be said to
be arbitrary. Moreover, all the prospective
bidders were informed by a corrigendum
issued on 01.08.2024 that they will have to
submit bid security, including EMD,
through bank draft on or before 13.08.2024,
therefore, technical bid submitted by a
bidder who fails to meet that condition can
very well be rejected.
10. Learned State Counsel submits that
respondent no.4 was found to be the lowest
bidder and contract has been awarded to

him. Thus, he submits that after award of
contract, the reliefs as claimed in the writ
petition do not survive as the matter has
progressed much beyond the opening of
technical bid.
11. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, we do not find
any scope for interference in the matter, as
petitioner himself is to be blamed for not
submitting EMD through bank draft, in
original, in terms of the condition stipulated
in the corrigendum dated 01.08.2024.
12. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is
dismissed.


(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
09.09.2026
JKJ/