Mandatory tender conditions require strict compliance; courts will not excuse uncertified banking references or inadequate technical experience.

The North East Frontier Railway issued Notice Inviting Tender No. Mech-LMG-ET-14-2025-26 dated 19 February 2026 for a ten-year BOOT contract involving the establishment and operation of a mechanized laundry at Badarpur, along with collection, transportation, washing and distribution of linen.

The tender required bidders to possess, inter alia, liquidity equivalent to 5% of the estimated bid value and technical experience in setting up and operating a mechanized laundry having a minimum capacity of four tonnes per shift, with at least four tonnes of linen washed per shift continuously for twelve months during the qualifying period.

The petitioner’s technical bid was declared non-responsive for two principal reasons: its banking reference was not certified by a Chartered Accountant, and its documents did not establish the requisite experience of setting up a qualifying mechanized laundry.

Only Respondent No. 6 was found technically responsive and its financial bid was opened.

The petitioner’s representations were unsuccessful, leading to the present writ petition. Although an interim order restrained further steps in the tender, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition.

Whether the tendering authorities lawfully rejected the petitioner’s technical bid for failure to submit a banking reference certified by a Chartered Accountant.

Whether the petitioner satisfied the tender’s technical eligibility requirement of having set up and operated a mechanized laundry of the prescribed capacity for the prescribed period.

Whether the tendering authorities’ decision was so illegal, arbitrary or perverse as to warrant interference under judicial review.

The Court applied the settled principles governing judicial review of tender decisions, namely that courts do not substitute their interpretation or assessment for that of the tendering authority unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, perverse or contrary to the tender conditions.

Clause 1.3(B) required the audited balance sheet and/or banking reference to be certified by a Chartered Accountant bearing the requisite stamp, signature and membership number.

Clauses 1.1 and 1.4.1.1(vi), read with the prescribed annexures, required proof of setting up a mechanized laundry of at least four tonnes per shift, washing at least four tonnes per shift continuously for twelve months, and submission of supporting certificates evidencing similar work.

The “and/or” formulation in Clause 1.3(B) permitted reliance on a banking reference where the balance sheet alone did not establish the required liquidity, but did not dispense with the mandatory Chartered Accountant certification of that banking reference.

The petitioner’s balance sheet established liquidity of only Rs. 7,15,89,187, below the required 5% liquidity threshold of approximately Rs. 9.11 crores.

Consequently, the petitioner had to rely on the bank reference to cover the shortfall.

However, Clause 1.3(B) expressly required the banking reference, like the audited balance sheet, to be certified by a Chartered Accountant.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that “and/or” meant that the bank certificate itself did not require such certification, holding that the expression merely identified alternative means of proving liquidity and did not remove the certification requirement.

On technical experience, the tender required proof not merely of providing laundry services but of setting up a qualifying mechanized laundry facility and washing the prescribed quantity of linen for twelve continuous months.

The certificate relied upon by the petitioner referred only to the supply of linen and mechanized laundry services and did not establish that the petitioner had set up the required mechanized laundry.

The Court further distinguished Annexures XII and XII(A), which concerned particular technical details, from Annexures II and III, which required a list and supporting certification of similar works completed or ongoing during the qualifying period.

Since the petitioner failed to produce documents satisfying the prescribed conditions, the rejection was neither arbitrary nor illegal.

The rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid was therefore upheld, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the interim order was vacated. No costs were imposed.