Inadvertent typographical errors in bid documents do not constitute mala fide misrepresentation warranting disqualification if no undue advantage is gained.

The Petitioner challenged the award of public contracts for manpower services (Bid Nos. GEM/2025/B/7005488 and GEM/2025/B/7004775) in favor of Respondent No. 5

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 5 submitted a Chartered Accountant (CA) Certificate with an inflated turnover of ₹10,98,54,61,729/-, while its audited balance sheet purportedly showed only ₹1,09,85,617/-

Respondent No. 1 (NSSO) clarified that Respondent No. 5, being a Micro and Small Enterprise (MSE), was entitled to a minimum of 9 marks regardless of turnover

It was further revealed that a typographical error in the CA certificate (adding an extra digit "4") was corrected to show the actual turnover as ₹1,09,85,61,729/-, which matched the audited statements when read as "₹ in 00" per ROC guidelines

1. Whether Respondent No. 5 committed a deliberate misrepresentation/fraud by submitting a CA Certificate with a typographical error in turnover figures, warranting disqualification under the RFP

2. Whether the decision-making process of Respondent No. 1 in accepting the clarification and awarding the contract was arbitrary or irrational

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the scope of judicial review in contractual/tender matters

The principle that interference is warranted only if the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, irrationality, or procedural impropriety

Request for Proposal (RFP) Clauses 8.4.1(iv), (v) and 8.4.2(v) concerning technical evaluation scores for turnover and the consequences of submitting false information

The Court found that the discrepancy in turnover was a "clerical and typographical error" rather than a mala fide misrepresentation.

The corrected turnover of over ₹100 Crores entitled Respondent No. 5 to the maximum 15 marks, yet it was only awarded 9 marks as an MSE; thus, no preferential advantage was gained

Crucially, the Court noted the Petitioner misread the financial statements, failing to realize the figures were represented in "hundreds" (₹ in 00), which actually reconciled the figures to approximately ₹109 Crores

Since Respondent No. 1 sought and verified clarifications before finalization, the Court held the process was transparent and not arbitrary

The Court answered that the error was not a "deliberate misrepresentation" intended to secure undue advantage

The petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹20,000/- imposed on the Petitioner for lack of due diligence and filing a grievance based on a misreading of documents, payable to DHCLSC