Gauhati HC Upholds FCI’s Rejection Of Rhino Enterprises’ Godown Bid Over Missing Partner-Authorization Document, Though Firm May Bid In Fresh Tender

The Food Corporation of India’s tender notice required a partnership-firm signatory to state the capacity in which they signed and produce a document empowering them to do so.

Rhino Enterprises’ bid was rejected as technically non-responsive because it had not submitted that document.

The firm relied on a clause in its partnership deed permitting partners to submit bids jointly or severally, and later represented that either or all partners could bid on its behalf.

The representation was rejected.

While the writ petition challenging the rejection was pending, FCI cancelled the tender and issued a fresh notice.

Clause 4(b)(2) of the Invitation to Tender and Instructions to Tenderers required a signatory for a registered partnership firm to identify whether they signed as a partner or constituted attorney and to produce a document empowering them to sign.

The Court considered the scope of its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in reviewing the tender authority’s decision.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited as a separate basis for the decision.

The Court found that the tender authority had expressly required documentary proof empowering the particular partner to submit the bid.

Rhino Enterprises admittedly had not supplied such a document with its bid.

The Court considered the firm’s reliance on the partnership-deed clause but concluded that the record did not contain a document showing that all partners had authorised the partner who submitted the bid.

In the Court’s view, the authority’s decision to enforce the stated tender requirement did not warrant interference under Article 226.

It clarified that the dismissal did not preclude the firm from bidding in response to the fresh tender notice, if so advised.