Post-bid submission of mandatory documents cannot cure technical bid deficiencies or create enforceable rights.

The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, participated in a tender (No. 13/CE/Bridge Zone/2025-26) for the construction of a submersible bridge in District Shivpuri

The bid submission deadline was 08.10.2025, and technical bids were opened on 10.10.2025

Upon evaluation, the respondents found that the petitioner had failed to submit three essential documents: educational qualifications/CVs, list of lab equipment, and evidence of equipment

A notice was issued on 25.11.2025 allowing the petitioner to file a response by 27.11.2025

The petitioner claimed to have supplied the deficit documents on 26.11.2025; however, the respondents rejected the technical bid on 16.12.2025, citing non-fulfillment of minimum qualifications and failure to reply within the stipulated period

The petitioner challenged this rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the delayed submission of essential technical documents after the bid submission end date can be accepted by the tendering authority?

2. Whether the notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner constituted an opportunity to remove a default or was merely an invitation to explain the existing deficiency?

The Court applied Clause-4 of Annexure-F to the tender document, which stipulates that bidders may only modify or withdraw bids prior to the bid submission end date

Regarding judicial review, the Court relied on the principles established in Tata Motors Limited v. BEST [2023 (19) SCC 1], emphasizing that courts should refrain from interfering in commercial contracts unless the decision is grossly arbitrary or against public interest

It further cited Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517], which held that principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in commercial functions and that procedural aberrations do not warrant interference if the decision is bona fide

Additionally, the Court referred to Tata Cellular v. Union of India [1994 (6) SCC 651] regarding the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions

The Court reasoned that the petitioner was bound by the explicit terms of the tender, specifically Clause-4, which mandated that all modifications must occur before 08.10.2025

Since the technical bid was admittedly deficient at the time of opening, the petitioner had no legal right to supplement it with missing documents at a later stage

The Court clarified that the respondents' notice dated 25.11.2025 used the term "Abhikathan" (assertion/reply), which intended to give the petitioner a chance to contest whether the documents were actually missing, not a license to cure the defect post-deadline

Applying the high threshold for judicial review in tender matters, the Court found no evidence of mala fides, irrationality, or prejudice to public interest that would justify overriding the employer’s decision to disqualify a non-compliant bidder

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit as the decision-making process was neither arbitrary nor irrational

The interim order dated 28.01.2026 was vacated