Tender bidders must disclose submitted bids as existing commitments; omission justifies disqualification.

The petitioner challenged the Tender Evaluation Committee’s decision declaring its technical bid non-responsive for failing to disclose that it had submitted a bid for another road-construction project in Uttar Pradesh.

The Committee treated the omission as a misleading representation under Clause 4.7(i) of Section 2 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD).

The petitioner argued that Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 required disclosure only of ongoing works and that it had not yet been awarded the Uttar Pradesh contract.

It also contended that other bidders had similarly failed to provide the required information

1. Whether Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of the SBD required disclosure of a work for which the bidder had submitted a bid, even if no contract had yet been awarded

2. Whether the petitioner’s non-disclosure justified rejection of its technical bid as a misleading or false representation under Clause 4.7(i) of Section 2 of the SBD

3. Whether the Court should interfere with the tender authority’s decision, including in light of the petitioner’s contention that other bidders had also failed to disclose comparable information

Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of the SBD required disclosure of both works for which bids had been submitted and works yet to be completed; Clause 4.7(i) of Section 2 permitted disqualification where a bidder made misleading or false representations in material submitted to establish qualification

A bidder’s participation in another tender may constitute an existing commitment relevant to assessing its bid capacity, even where the contract has not yet been awarded

In tender matters, courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 should generally defer to the procuring authority’s interpretation of its tender documents and interfere only where the decision-making process is arbitrary, perverse, mala fide, or otherwise warrants intervention.

The Court relied on *Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.*, (1999) 1 SCC 492; *Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.*, (2000) 2 SCC 617; *Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.*, (2016) 16 SCC 818; and *N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain*, 2022 (6) SCC 127

The Court read Clause 1.3.3 as expressly covering “works for which bids have been submitted,” in addition to incomplete works; the heading “Existing commitments and on-going construction works” reinforced that interpretation.

The absence of a specific table column for pending bids did not excuse disclosure, and the certificate requirement concerning remaining work did not limit the clause’s broader text.

Because the petitioner had submitted a bid for another road project, that information was relevant to evaluating its capacity and should have been disclosed; the omission justified rejection under Clause 4.7(i)

The Court declined to review the treatment of other bidders because the petitioner had not raised that ground in its representation to the Committee and had not adequately pleaded the issue in the writ petition.

Applying the deferential standard for tender review, it found no basis to interfere

Finding no ground for judicial interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending application