Mandatory tender conditions regarding EMD submission modes must be strictly complied with at the time of bidding.

The Appellant, a registered contractor, participated in a tender process (NIB No. 04/2025-26) issued by the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Jaisalmer, for road renovation work.

The tender conditions mandated the submission of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) via Demand Draft or Banker’s Cheque.

The Appellant initially submitted EMD as lien-marked Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs), later substituting them with a Demand Draft on 23.08.2025, prior to the opening of technical bids.

The Respondents rejected the bid for non-compliance with the prescribed EMD mode.

A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Appellant's writ petition on 24.09.2025.

Meanwhile, the work order was issued to a third party on 18.09.2025, and work is currently in progress.

The Appellant challenged the dismissal via these intra-court appeals.

1. Whether the rejection of a bid due to the submission of EMD in a non-prescribed mode at the time of bid submission is legally sustainable despite subsequent rectification before technical evaluation.

2. Whether the Court should interfere in a tender process under Article 226 when the contract has already been awarded and work has commenced.

The Court applied Rule 42(6) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013, which specifies the mandatory modes for furnishing bid security.

It relied on the principle that essential tender conditions must be strictly enforced to ensure a level playing field.

The Court followed the precedents of *Central Coalfields Limited v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)* (2016) 8 SCC 622, establishing that courts should not substitute administrative wisdom in contractual matters.

The Court followed the precedents of *Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Anoj Kumar Garwala* (2020) 17 SCC 577, which limits the scope of judicial review in tender matters to the decision-making process rather than the merits.

The Court reasoned that compliance with bid security conditions must exist at the time of submission; allowing post-submission rectifications would undermine the sanctity of the procurement process and disadvantage other bidders.

It distinguished *Poddar Steel Corporation* and *B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.*, noting that EMD requirements are not merely "ancillary" or "directory" but are fundamental to ensuring financial seriousness and procedural uniformity.

The Court found no evidence of Article 14 violations or discriminatory treatment, as the Appellant failed to prove that other similarly situated non-compliant bidders were accepted.

Crucially, the Court observed that because the Letter of Acceptance and work order were already issued and the project was underway, judicial restraint was necessary to avoid causing greater public injury by disrupting infrastructure development.

The Court affirmed that judicial review is restricted to the decision-making process and found no procedural infirmity in the Respondent’s reasoned rejection order.

Consequently, the Special Appeals were dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.