Mandatory Technical Specifications In Tenders Must Be Strictly Complied With And Cannot Be Rectified Post-Bid.

The Petitioner, a partnership firm, participated in an e-tender [dated 16.12.2025] floated by the Public Works Department (PWD) for the construction of a flyover in Raipur on a "Lump Sum Basis"

Per the tender terms, bidders could either consent to the Departmental General Arrangement Drawing (GAD) or submit an "Alternate GAD"

The Petitioner submitted an Alternate GAD, which was subsequently found by the Respondents to deviate from mandatory technical parameters: the pier width was 4.0 meters (limit 3.0 meters) and the formation level exceeded the permissible 260 mm limit by 330 mm

Despite the Petitioner’s clarification that the GAD was merely "illustrative" and an undertaking to adhere to actual specifications, the Respondents rejected the technical bid on 24.02.2026 and 25.02.2026

The Petitioner challenged these communications as arbitrary and disproportionate

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid for deviation from mandatory GAD specifications was arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to the principles of public procurement.

2. Whether a bidder can cure material technical defects in a bid through post-bid undertakings or clarifications after the submission deadline.

The Court primarily applied the doctrine of limited judicial review in contractual matters as established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, which restricts the Court to examining the decision-making process rather than the merits

It relied on Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. to affirm that the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements

Based on Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, interference is only permitted in cases of mala fides or perversity

The Court applied the principle from Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), which mandates strict compliance with essential tender conditions and prohibits curing substantive defects post-bid

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner, having opted to submit an "Alternate GAD," was legally bound to ensure it met the mandatory technical specifications of Annexure "M" and "N" at the time of submission

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the GAD was "illustrative," noting that the tender framework did not contemplate non-binding designs

On the issue of post-bid cures, the Court held that NIT Special Condition 9(c) strictly barred any representations or modifications after the 27.01.2026 deadline

The Court emphasized that deviations regarding pier width and formation levels are fundamental engineering concerns—not minor clerical errors—as they impact land acquisition and utility shifting in dense urban areas

Consequently, the Respondents’ decision followed a fair process, including a notice-and-response period, satisfying the principles of natural justice

The Court ruled that no vested right exists for a non-responsive bidder to seek relaxation of essential conditions through judicial intervention

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the Petitioner