Specific tender eligibility criteria prevail over general portal guidance notes for evaluating bidder qualifications.

The Petitioner challenged the evaluation process adopted by the Election Commission of India (ECI/Respondent No. 2) in Bid No. GEM/2025/B/7038852 for the procurement of vehicle services

The Petitioner sought to set aside the selection of Respondent No. 3 as the L1 bidder, alleging they failed to meet mandatory eligibility criteria, and further sought a re-evaluation of technical and financial bids

The ECI clarified that Respondent No. 4 had already been debarred in 2024 and was not considered for the tender

The Petitioner further contended that his representations regarding the tender process had not been addressed by the ECI

1. Whether the general eligibility conditions of the GeM Portal or the specific eligibility criteria stipulated in the ECI tender document (Clause 2 and 4) govern the evaluation process.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s challenge to the tender award is sustainable given that his bid was higher than both the L1 and L2 bidders.

The Court applied the principle of contractual interpretation in tender matters, establishing that specific eligibility criteria provided in a tender document (Clause 2 and Clause 4) supersede general guidelines indicated for portal guidance (page 36 of the bid)

The rules required a bidder to possess at least five years of experience in providing vehicles to government entities and a minimum average annual turnover of ₹6 crore over the last three financial years

The Court examined the discrepancy between the general guidance notes on the GeM portal and the specific "Eligibility Criteria" listed under Clause 2 of the ECI's tender document

It held that Clause 2, which mandated specific requirements for legal entity status, experience, fleet size, and registration dates, was the sole governing provision for determining bidder eligibility

A combined reading of Clauses 2 and 4 necessitated that bidders demonstrate five years of experience alongside the prescribed ₹6 crore turnover

The Court observed that because the Petitioner’s bid was financially higher than both the L1 (Respondent No. 3) and the L2 (M/s. White Rose Travels), the Petitioner was not shortlisted and thus lacked a basis to challenge the selection

Regarding the Petitioner’s pending representations, the Court noted the ECI's undertaking to provide a reasoned response within a fixed timeline

The Court held that the specific tender clauses governed eligibility and noted that the Petitioner was not in the zone of consideration due to a higher bid price

The Court directed the ECI to communicate the reasons for its decision to the Petitioner within three weeks

The challenge regarding Respondent No. 4 was declared infructuous as they had been debarred prior to the selection