An authorized signatory’s partnership in another registered firm is not disqualifying absent an express tender prohibition.

The Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency (URRDA) issued a Notice Inviting Tender. The petitioner and respondent no. 4 submitted bids, and respondent no. 4 was declared successful as the lowest bidder (L-1).

The petitioner challenged the Procurement Evaluation Committee’s decision dated 20 July 2026, which held respondent no. 4’s bid responsive, as well as the Technical Committee’s decision dated 29 August 2024 concerning complaints against that bid.

The petitioner contended that the board resolution dated 18 June 2024 authorising Mr. Amol Choudhary to submit bids and execute contracts had been signed by only one director. He further argued that Mr. Choudhary was a partner in another entity, M/s Shri Ram Construction, registered with the State Public Works Department, and that his complaint to the Chief Engineer, URRDA, had not been decided.

Respondent no. 4 submitted that both directors were present at the meeting and had signed the meeting register. It also relied on a General Power of Attorney executed by both directors in favour of Mr. Choudhary on 18 June 2024. One of those directors subsequently died, but the company continued to possess its independent legal personality.

1. Whether respondent no. 4’s bid was liable to be rejected because the resolution authorising Mr. Amol Choudhary was allegedly signed by only one director and one of the signatory directors subsequently died?

2. Whether Mr. Amol Choudhary’s partnership in another firm registered with the Public Works Department disqualified him from submitting a bid or acting for respondent no. 4?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for consideration of his pending complaint by the Chief Engineer, URRDA?

The Court applied the principle that a company is a juristic person with a legal personality distinct from that of its directors; consequently, the subsequent death of a director does not alter the company’s legal status or invalidate its bid.

It further applied the tender-law principle that eligibility and disqualification must be determined by the conditions contained in the Notice Inviting Tender or the Instructions to Bidders. Registration of another firm with the PWD, by itself, is not a disqualification unless the NIT or ITB expressly provides for it.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found substance in respondent no. 4’s submissions. The material before the Court indicated that both directors were present at the relevant meeting and that a General Power of Attorney had been executed in favour of Mr. Choudhary. Since respondent no. 4 was a company possessing an independent legal identity, the subsequent death of one director did not affect the company’s eligibility or the validity of its bid.

Similarly, Mr. Choudhary’s association with another partnership firm registered with the PWD could not independently operate as a disqualification because the petitioner did not establish any provision in the NIT or ITB imposing such a bar.

The Court also noted that respondent no. 4 was the lowest bidder and that its bid was approximately ₹40 lakhs lower than the petitioner’s L-2 bid, reinforcing the absence of a sustainable challenge on the stated grounds.

However, the petitioner’s separate grievance regarding the non-consideration of his complaint remained capable of administrative determination.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with a direction to the concerned Chief Engineer, URRDA, to consider and decide the petitioner’s complaint, if it had not already been decided, within four weeks from production of a certified copy of the order.