A bidder debarred within the preceding five years is ineligible under the tender.

The Bihar Police Building Constructions Corporation issued NIT E-Quotation No. 02/2025-26 dated 2 September 2025 for comprehensive maintenance of the external areas of the Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir, including horticulture, plantation, gardening, pest control, grass and parking areas, grounds, pond and other open spaces, for five years.

The Technical Evaluation Committee initially found respondent no. 10’s bid non-responsive on the grounds that the requisite OHSAS certificate was not submitted and the bidder lacked the prescribed experience; the petitioner’s bid was found technically responsive.

Subsequently, respondent no. 10 was declared technically eligible and L-1 in the technical and financial evaluation, while the petitioner was treated as L-2.

Respondent no. 10 had admittedly been debarred by East Central Railway from 17 October 2022 to 17 December 2024.

A work order was issued to respondent no. 10 on 8 December 2025, and an agreement was executed on 22 April 2026 during the pendency of the writ petition.

Whether respondent no. 10, having been debarred by a Government/PSU undertaking within the preceding five years, was eligible to participate in the tender under Clause 1.2(h) of the NIT?

Whether the declaration of respondent no. 10 as technically eligible and L-1, followed by issuance of the work order and execution of the agreement, was legally sustainable?

Whether the technical bid decision, financial bid decision, work order and agreement were liable to be quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration?

Clause 1.2(h) of the NIT expressly required that an applicant must not have been blacklisted, deregistered or debarred by any Government, semi-Government or PSU undertaking during the last five years.

The Court interpreted this eligibility condition by reference to the relevant five-year period preceding the tender and held that a bidder who had suffered debarment within that period was ineligible, even if the period of debarment had expired before submission of the bid.

The Court also considered the principle that contractual or tendering authorities must act in accordance with the terms of the tender and cannot treat an ineligible bidder as responsive.

The petitioner also relied on Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in [2026] 2 SCR / 2026 INSC 22, concerning judicial review of tender-related decisions.

The Court found it undisputed that respondent no. 10 had been debarred by East Central Railway from 17 October 2022 to 17 December 2024, and that the tender was submitted on 25 September 2025.

Clause 1.2(h) did not merely prohibit a bidder from being under an active debarment on the date of submission; it required that the bidder should not have suffered blacklisting or debarment during the preceding five years.

Since respondent no. 10’s debarment fell within that five-year period, it was ineligible to participate.

The Technical Evaluation Committee therefore acted contrary to the NIT in treating respondent no. 10 as technically responsive and permitting it to become L-1.

The subsequent financial evaluation, work order and agreement were consequential acts founded upon an invalid eligibility determination.

The fact that the agreement had been executed and work had commenced during the writ proceedings did not cure the fundamental breach of the tender condition; rather, the Court held that it had no option but to set aside the consequential actions.

The technical bid decision dated 17 November 2025, the financial bid decision dated 26 November 2025, the work order dated 8 December 2025 and the agreement dated 22 April 2026 were quashed and set aside.

The matter was remitted to the Corporation to take a fresh decision regarding the work in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.