Bona fide tender awards serving public interest are protected despite minor procedural non-compliance.

Respondent No. 1 (Tender Inviting Authority) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on 12.03.2025 for the "M.P. Dial 112, Phase-II" project on a turnkey basis

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were technically qualified; Respondent No. 2 was declared the successful bidder (L1) with a bid approximately ₹24.08 Crores lower than the Petitioner (L2)

The Petitioner challenged the qualification of Respondent No. 2, alleging: (i) failure to submit Form 21 (OEM certification); (ii) submission of an invalid ITIL 4 certificate from UsCert instead of the required PeopleCert; and (iii) submission of a forged/unauthorized Manufacturer Authorization Form (MAF) for the Video Conferencing System

Respondent No. 1 had allowed Respondent No. 2 to provide undertakings and submit corrected documents/certificates after the bid opening

Notably, the Petitioner had also been permitted to submit a missing ISO certificate after the bid deadline to qualify

A work order was issued on 30.05.2025, and the project became operational

The Court emphasized the principle of judicial restraint in commercial matters, holding that the "Government and public sector undertakings must be allowed 'fair play in the joints'"

It relied on Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (2023), which directs courts not to use a "magnifying glass" to scan tenders for minor errors

Following Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd. (2018), the court held that substantial compliance with essential conditions is sufficient

Under Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007), public interest must outweigh private grievances or procedural aberrations in tender evaluations

Clauses 8.4 and 8.5 of the RFP further empowered the authority to seek additional information or undertakings from bidders

The Court found that the deficiencies in Respondent No. 2’s bid were neither fatal nor indicative of malafides.

Regarding the ITIL certificate, Respondent No. 2 provided an undertaking to submit the PeopleCert version before delivery, which was permissible under RFP Clause 8.5 and subsequently honored

The MAF discrepancy was deemed a "bonafide mistake" caused by a channel partner, which was rectified with corrected documents from the OEMs (QSC and Erthpot)

The Court highlighted that the disputed components (Video Conferencing) accounted for only 0.5% of the ₹972 Crore project value

Crucially, the Petitioner was found to have benefited from similar procedural indulgence regarding its ISO certificate, estopping it from claiming such flexibility was arbitrary when applied to a competitor

Finally, the Court noted that Respondent No. 2's bid saved the public exchequer ₹24.08 Crores and that the "Dial 112" system is a critical public safety service already in operation, making its disruption contrary to public interest

The Court answered that Respondent No. 1’s acceptance of subsequent clarifications and undertakings was within its rights under the RFP and served the public interest by securing a lower-priced, functional emergency system

No order as to costs was made