Failure to submit the physically required bank guarantee by tender deadline justifies bid exclusion.

The petitioner challenged its exclusion from a tender on the ground that it had failed to submit the physical copy of the bank guarantee by the stipulated deadline of 3:00 p.m. on 7 August 2026, although a soft copy had been uploaded with the tender at 2:45 p.m.

The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 20 August 2026. The petitioner thereafter sought review, contending that the Court had wrongly relied on the respondents’ submission that three other bidders had also been excluded on the same or related grounds, and that the decision in Central Coalfields Limited v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) had been distinguished in a later Delhi High Court decision.

The petitioner also relied on heavy rainfall, waterlogging and traffic congestion as reasons for the delayed submission of the physical bank guarantee; however, its representation was submitted only on 8 August 2026 at 3:14 p.m.

Whether the order dated 20 August 2026 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, particularly in relying on the failure to submit the physical bank guarantee within the stipulated time

Whether reliance on the exclusion of three other bidders on the same or related grounds rendered the petitioner’s exclusion discriminatory or amounted to impermissible “pick and choose” action

Whether the subsequent decision in Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited v. Union of India & Anr. justified review of the earlier order

The Court applied the settled principle that a tendering authority and bidders must adhere to the express conditions of the NIT, particularly where the tender requires submission of a bank guarantee in a prescribed manner and within a specified time.

Relying on Central Coalfields Limited v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622, the Court held that failure to comply with a prescribed bank-guarantee requirement is sufficient to justify rejection of a bid.

The Court also applied the principle that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a decision.

Consistent treatment of similarly situated bidders was relevant to determining whether the respondents had acted arbitrarily or selectively.

The Court held that the physical submission of the bank guarantee by 3:00 p.m. on 7 August 2026 was an express tender condition and that the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with it.

Uploading a soft copy at 2:45 p.m. did not satisfy the separate requirement to submit the physical copy.

The petitioner had also not demonstrated any timely attempt to contact the concerned officer or otherwise secure acceptance of the physical document before the deadline.

Since three other bidders had allegedly been excluded on the same or related grounds, the Court found no basis to infer selective or discriminatory treatment by the respondents.

The Court further held that the later decision relied upon by the petitioner did not establish an error apparent in the impugned order, particularly because the earlier order had independently rested on the petitioner’s admitted non-compliance with the tender condition.

The petitioner’s failure to submit the physical bank guarantee within the stipulated time validly justified its exclusion from the tender, and the respondents’ action could not be faulted merely because the petitioner had uploaded a soft copy earlier.

Review Petition No. 397/2026 was dismissed as meritless, and the pending applications were dismissed as infructuous.