Failure to submit the prescribed affidavit format justifies rejection of a tenderer’s technical bid.

The petitioner sought mandamus directing the State authorities to execute an agreement and issue a work order in his favour, claiming he had been declared L-1 in the tender process under NIT No. 08/2023-24.

In an earlier order dated 12 March 2024 in CWJC No. 4435 of 2024, the High Court had rejected his challenge to the rejection of his technical bid because his affidavit did not comply with the format prescribed by Clause 20 of the NIT.

The State filed Civil Review No. 27 of 2025 against that order but withdrew the review petition at the hearing.

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain mandamus for execution of the tender agreement and issuance of a work order after the rejection of his technical bid had been upheld in the earlier writ proceeding.

2. Whether the State’s review petition should remain pending after the State sought permission to withdraw it.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent.

It applies the effect of the prior order upholding the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid: once that rejection stood, the petitioner could not obtain the consequential tender reliefs sought in the present writ petition.

The Court also disposed of the State’s review petition as withdrawn on the State’s submission.

The petitioner’s claimed entitlement to the agreement and work order depended on his bid being accepted. The earlier order had upheld the rejection of his technical bid for non-compliance with the affidavit format required by Clause 20 of the NIT.

Since the State withdrew its review petition against that order, the basis for the petitioner’s requested relief remained undisturbed; the Court therefore held that the reliefs sought could not be granted.

It also dismissed CWJC No. 15302 of 2025 because the petitioner’s technical bid rejection had already been upheld, and directed that any pending applications stand disposed of.