Disqualification solely for an affidavit-signature mismatch set aside for fresh technical-bid consideration.

The petitioner participated in several groups under Short Term Tender Notice No. 09/2025-26, issued by the Nagar Parishad, Mokama, for works under the Nal-Jal Scheme.

Although initially declared technically qualified for 23 groups, he was later disqualified because the signatures on his uploaded affidavit were found not to match those on the original affidavit.

He maintained that both signatures were his and alleged that the respondents had not conducted a transparent verification or given him an opportunity to explain before taking the decision; he acknowledged that a hearing was held after the decision.

After the Court reviewed the respondents’ records, the Advocate General stated that the signature discrepancy was the sole ground for disqualification and proposed remitting the matter to the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee for reconsideration.

Whether the petitioner’s technical disqualification, based solely on an alleged discrepancy between the signatures on the uploaded and original affidavits, should be set aside and reconsidered.

Whether the matter should be remitted to the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee to reconsider the petitioner’s technical bid in accordance with the N.I.T. and law.

The judgment does not cite any statute, regulation, or precedent.

It directs that the petitioner’s technical bid be reconsidered in accordance with law and the provisions of the Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.).

No broader legal rule or doctrine is articulated.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s disqualification rested only on the alleged signature mismatch, and the Advocate General confirmed that no other aspect materially affected the bid.

After reviewing the respondents’ records, the Court accepted the State’s proposal—agreed to by the petitioner—to set aside the disqualification proceedings and remit the technical bid for fresh consideration, rather than determine the signature issue itself.

The exercise was directed to be completed within four weeks; the writ petition and any pending applications were disposed of.