Inconsistent declarations regarding key personnel's experience and age constitute misrepresentation, justifying technical disqualification in tender processes.

The petitioner participated in a tender process (N.I.T. No. 04SBD/2024-25) for the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Buildings in Gaya

Initially declared technically qualified, the Tender Committee later rejected the petitioner's bid for three groups (02, 03, and 04) following complaints from other bidders

The rejection was based on an affidavit for key personnel, Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, which stated his age as 41 years but claimed 28 years of experience, implying he started professional work at age 13

The petitioner claimed this was a typographical error and provided a corrected date of birth (10.01.1968), but the Committee reaffirmed the disqualification

It was also noted that in a subsequent tender, the petitioner submitted an affidavit for the same personnel claiming 33 years of experience without disclosing his age

1. Whether the petitioner, having furnished inconsistent and incomplete declarations regarding the experience and age of key personnel, can be said to have made a bona fide disclosure of material particulars or if it amounts to misrepresentation

2. Whether the respondents were justified in disqualifying the petitioner on the grounds that the claimed experience led to an inherently improbable situation

The Court applied the principles of equity and "clean hands" under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008), which mandates candid disclosure of material facts

Regarding tender interpretation, the Court relied on the "author of the document" rule from Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corp. Ltd. (2016)

The principle of judicial restraint in commercial matters established in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India (2020)

It further emphasized strict compliance with tender terms as per Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (JV) (2016), noting that the responsiveness of a bid must be determined solely on the information furnished at the time of submission

The Court analyzed that under Clause 4 and 4.5 B(b) of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD), the disclosure of key personnel's experience is a core eligibility condition

As per departmental Letter No. 81/07/3284, no post-bid clarifications are permitted

The Court found the original disclosure—where a 41-year-old claimed 28 years of professional experience—to be "inherently implausible"

Furthermore, the discrepancy between the 28-year claim in the current NIT and a 33-year claim in a subsequent NIT suggested a pattern of unreliable and inconsistent disclosures

The Court reasoned that since the evaluation is strictly document-based, the Tender Committee acted within its rights under Clause 4.8 of the SBD to disqualify the bidder for misleading or unreliable representations

The petitioner’s "typographical error" plea was rejected because it could not rectify the material inconsistency after the bid submission deadline

It held that the petitioner’s inconsistent disclosures partook the character of misrepresentation [para. 19] and the respondents’ decision to disqualify the bid based on inherent improbability was neither arbitrary nor illegal

The writ petition was dismissed, though the Court ordered the immediate return of the petitioner's Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Bank Guarantees