High Courts will not reappraise tender decisions where bid non-responsiveness is established under the RFP.

The petitioner, a joint-venture consortium comprising Shanti Enggicon Private Limited and LLC Sphere, challenged the rejection of its techno-commercial bid in Tender No. ECR-CAO-C-N-EPC-08-25-26, issued by East Central Railway and due on 30 September 2025.

The rejection communication dated 2 June 2026 stated that the bid was “not signed/submitted by authorized person”.

The petitioner contended that it had submitted the prescribed powers of attorney, consortium authorisation and Digital Signature Certificate particulars, and sought consideration of its technical bid and setting aside of the tender result.

The respondents stated that the bid had been digitally signed and submitted on the IREPS portal by Rahul Didwania, who was not authorised under the relevant power of attorney, and that the petitioner had also failed to submit the auditor-certified undertaking required for non-submission of the 2024–25 annual report.

The tender had ultimately been awarded to Respondent No. 4.

Whether the petitioner’s bid was rightly rejected as non-responsive for having been digitally signed and submitted by a person not authorised under the tender documents and applicable powers of attorney.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to submit the required auditor-certified undertaking concerning the latest unaudited annual report constituted an additional ground of non-responsiveness under Clauses 2.2.2.7(ii) and 3.1.6.1 of the RFP.

Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court could interfere with the Tender Committee’s decision or direct reconsideration of the petitioner’s bid.

The Court applied the principle that judicial review under Article 226 in contractual and tender matters is limited and that the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of a tender evaluation committee.

Interference is not warranted where the tender authority has acted in accordance with the RFP and there are sufficient reasons to regard the bid as non-responsive.

The Court also applied the binding tender requirements contained in Clauses 2.10.2, 2.14.1.1 and 2.14.2.3 concerning digital signing and submission by an authorised person, and Clauses 2.2.2.7(ii) and 3.1.6.1 concerning submission of audited annual reports or an auditor-certified undertaking where the latest financial year’s accounts were unaudited.

The Court accepted the respondents’ determination that the bid had been digitally signed and submitted on IREPS by Rahul Didwania, although the power of attorney and consortium authorisation identified Sourav Ghosh as the authorised attorney of the lead member; this was held to violate the relevant RFP provisions and rendered the bid non-responsive.

The Court further noted that Shanti Enggicon had furnished audited annual reports for 2019–20 to 2023–24 instead of the required period ending 2024–25, without submitting the auditor-certified undertaking contemplated by Clause 2.2.2.7(ii).

Since the petitioner had not seriously controverted these grounds in rejoinder, and the Tender Committee had sufficient contractual grounds for treating the bid as invalid, the Court declined to reassess the technical evaluation under Article 226.

Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it without costs and directed that any pending applications also stand disposed of.