An architect-prepared site plan does not satisfy an express tender requirement for engineer certification.

The petitioner challenged the rejection of her technical bid for settlement of an IMFL retail off-licence shop.

The Scrutiny Committee rejected the bid because the site plan she submitted was signed by an architect and was not certified by an engineer, as required by Annexure-C to the tender.

The petitioner also contended that the successful bidder, respondent No. 6, had not uploaded Annexure-C with the online bid and had submitted it only in hard copy, contrary to Clause 10.

Whether the requirement in Annexure-C that the site plan be certified by an engineer formed part of the tender conditions and was binding on the petitioner.

Whether the acceptance of respondent No. 6’s bid, despite Annexure-C allegedly being submitted only in hard copy, rendered the rejection of the petitioner’s bid unlawful or arbitrary.

A tender document must be read as a whole, and its provisions harmoniously construed; an express requirement in one part of the tender cannot be disregarded merely because it is not repeated in another part.

Judicial review of tender decisions is limited: the court does not sit as an appellate authority over the tender committee and may intervene where a decision is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, perverse, or contrary to the tender conditions.

Article 14 requires uniform application of tender conditions but does not confer eligibility on a bidder who fails to meet an express condition.

Clause 6 described the listed technical-bid documents as those the bid would “primarily” consist of, so its omission of a specific reference to Annexure-C did not exclude that annexure from the tender.

Annexure-C formed part of the bid document, was to be completed by bidders, and expressly required a site plan certified by an engineer.

The petitioner’s plan identified and bore the signature of an architect, not an engineer, and therefore did not satisfy that substantive requirement.

Although Clause 10 provided for online submission and gave the online bid primacy over the hard copy in the event of a discrepancy, the Court held that the alleged failure to upload Annexure-C with respondent No. 6’s bid did not cure the petitioner’s own eligibility defect; the asserted irregularity did not warrant interference with the committee’s decision.

Finding no basis for judicial review, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the parties to bear their own costs.