Failure to submit original EMD through prescribed bank draft justifies rejection of a technical bid.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 17 August 2026 by which its technical bid in a tender issued pursuant to NIT dated 18 July 2026 was declared non-responsive on the ground that the original earnest money deposit (EMD) and tender fee had not been submitted.

Three bids were received, and after rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid, two bidders remained in the tender process.

The petitioner contended that the NIT did not require every bidder to submit the EMD and tender fee in physical form through bank draft.

The State submitted that a corrigendum dated 1 August 2026 required all prospective bidders to submit bid security, including EMD, through bank draft by speed post, and extended the deadline for submission of bids to 13 August 2026.

The petitioner alone failed to submit the original bank draft within the prescribed period, whereas the other two bidders complied with the requirement.

The State further informed the Court that respondent no. 4 had been found to be the lowest bidder and that the contract had already been awarded to him.

The Court applied the principle that a bidder must comply with material conditions of the tender, including conditions introduced or clarified through a duly issued corrigendum before the bid deadline.

A requirement that bid security or EMD be submitted through an original physical bank draft is intended to exclude non-serious bidders and is not, by itself, arbitrary.

Non-compliance with such a stipulated tender condition may justify rejection of the technical bid.

The Court also distinguished the coordinate Bench decision in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 90 of 2025 because that decision did not concern a requirement to submit EMD and tender fee through a physical bank draft.

Judicial review in tender matters does not permit interference where the procuring authority has applied a clear and uniformly applicable tender condition, particularly after the contract has been awarded, absent arbitrariness or illegality.

The Court found that the corrigendum dated 1 August 2026 clearly informed all prospective bidders that bid security, including EMD, had to be submitted through bank draft within the extended deadline.

The petitioner did not submit the original bank draft in physical form, while the other two bidders complied with the requirement.

Since the requirement was applicable to all bidders, was intended to ensure the seriousness of participation, and was not shown to be arbitrary, the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid was held to be justified.

The Court declined to examine alleged additional deficiencies because the bid had been rejected specifically on the ground of non-submission of the original EMD and tender fee.

Further, the award of the contract to respondent no. 4 made the petitioner’s requested relief—opening of its financial bid—unavailable in the circumstances.

The requirement was neither arbitrary nor unlawful, and the technical bid was rightly rejected.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no direction was issued to quash the rejection order or open the petitioner’s financial bid.