Strict Adherence to RFP Conditions Mandating Physical Submission of E-Payment Receipts Validates Rejection of Tender Bid.

The petitioner, a private limited company, participated in a tender invited by the East Central Railway for an Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) project regarding river protection works.

While the petitioner submitted its bid and paid the Bid Security of ₹1,02,69,400/- via an e-payment gateway, it failed to physically submit the original printed receipt of the e-payment to the designated office.

On 09.06.2026, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s bid during the technical evaluation on the grounds of non-submission of the original Bid Security in physical form.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that e-payment precluded the need for physical submission.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s bid for failing to submit the physical original e-payment receipt was lawful under the terms of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Whether electronic payment of Bid Security exempts a bidder from the mandatory requirement of physical delivery of the instrument/receipt as per Clause 2.20.6(ii) of the RFP.

Strict adherence to tender conditions and contractual interpretation of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Clause 2.20.6(ii) mandates that the original instrument (including e-payment gateway references) must be delivered in person before the closing date.

Clause 2.20.6(iii) provides for the "summary rejection of bid" for non-submission of the original instrument within the specified period.

The court evaluated the petitioner’s contention that electronic submission of the receipt was sufficient against the explicit language of the RFP.

The court noted that Clause 2.11.2 and Clause 2.20.6(ii) clearly distinguished between the uploading of documents and the physical delivery of original instruments.

The court observed that the RFP explicitly listed "e-payment Gateway of Authority" as one of the instruments requiring physical delivery of the original reference/receipt to the office of the Chief Administrative Officer.

Since it was an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deliver the physical receipt by the deadline of 19.02.2026, the court reasoned that the petitioner had breached a mandatory tender condition.

The court held that the authorities were bound by the summary rejection clause and acted within their jurisdiction to disqualify the petitioner.

The court concluded that there was no merit in the writ application as the petitioner failed to comply with the tender specifications; the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.