Tender bids may be rejected for failure to submit expressly required Chartered Accountant certificates.

The petitioner’s technical bid for hill-side cutting, muck disposal, wall construction and cross-drainage works on the Kathgodam–Ranibag section of National Highway No. 87 was declared non-responsive because she had not uploaded a Chartered Accountant’s certificate concerning existing commitments and ongoing works.

The petitioner argued that Clause 2.2(C) of Section IV required statements countersigned by an Engineer-in-Charge of at least Executive Engineer rank, and that she had submitted a certificate from the Executive Engineer.

The State relied on Form Tech-13, which required a Chartered Accountant’s certificate in addition to the work order and the Executive Engineer’s or competent authority’s certificate.

The petitioner challenged the rejection by writ petition.

Under Section IV, Clause 2.2(C) of the Standard Document for Procurement of Works, a bidder’s available bid capacity is assessed by reference to executed works, the completion period and the value of existing commitments; the accompanying note requires the relevant statements to be countersigned by an Engineer-in-Charge of at least Executive Engineer rank.

Form Tech-13 separately required a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, along with the work order and a certificate from the Executive Engineer or competent authority, for information on existing commitments and ongoing works.

In judicial review of tenders, courts ordinarily defer to the procuring authority’s interpretation and evaluation, intervening only where the decision-making process is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, perverse or otherwise unlawful: Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818.

The Court also relied on the principles that tender review must account for public interest and project consequences, and that courts should avoid substituting their assessment for the employer’s in technical tender matters: 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; N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, (2022) 6 SCC 127.

The Court read Clause 2.2(C) together with Form Tech-13. Although the clause’s note referred to countersignature by an Executive Engineer or equivalent, Form Tech-13 expressly required a Chartered Accountant’s certificate as well as the work order and the Executive Engineer’s or competent authority’s certificate.

Because the petitioner had not submitted the separately required Chartered Accountant’s certificate, the authority was entitled to treat the bid as non-responsive.

Applying the principles governing judicial review of tender decisions, the Court found no basis to interfere with the authority’s application of the tender requirements; it also noted the project’s stated importance in addressing traffic congestion and landslide-related bottlenecks near Ranibagh.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated.