Tender conditions expressly designating CDR labeling requirements as mandatory must be strictly complied with.

Respondent No. 2 issued e-NIT No. 255-REWJ of 2026–2027 dated 24 July 2026, inviting online percentage-rate bids for civil development works under the District Capex Budget PRI (Panchayat Level) for 2026–2027 in Block Marh, District Jammu.

The petitioner submitted his bid within the prescribed period and claimed that he had quoted the lowest competitive rates.

His bid was excluded from financial evaluation, and he challenged the financial evaluation dated 31 August 2026, seeking consideration of his bid.

The respondents’ stated basis for exclusion was that the petitioner had not written the serial number or exact name of the work on the front side of the uploaded Call Deposit Receipt (CDR).

The petitioner contended that this was not an essential tender condition and that the relevant work particulars were available on the treasury challan.

The Court found that the treasury challan contained the particulars required under Clause 6, but the CDR mentioned only the e-NIT number and did not mention the serial number or exact name of the work.

Clause 6 required the tender fee to be deposited through a treasury challan credited to Major Head 0515 (Revenue), explicitly mentioning the work name, e-NIT number, and work ID/serial number.

Clause 7 required the bid to be accompanied by an EMD in the form of a CDR/FDR and expressly prescribed, as a “strict mandatory requirement,” that the e-NIT number, serial number, or exact name of the work be written on the front side of the uploaded instrument.

Judicial review does not permit courts to rewrite, relax, or reinterpret tender conditions merely because another formulation may appear fairer or more reasonable.

The employer is entitled to determine whether a tender condition is mandatory or ancillary, and the Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the tendering authority.

The petitioner complied with Clause 6 because his treasury challan contained the prescribed work particulars.

However, compliance with Clause 6 did not cure the separate and express requirement in Clause 7 concerning the identification of the work on the uploaded CDR/FDR.

The CDR admittedly mentioned only the e-NIT number and omitted both the serial number and the exact name of the work.

Since Clause 7 described this labeling requirement as strictly mandatory, the Court declined to treat the omission as a curable or ancillary defect.

It held that judicial review could not be used to dilute the tender condition or compel the employer to consider a bid that did not comply with it.

The petitioner’s failure to comply justified exclusion of his bid, notwithstanding the particulars contained in the treasury challan.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and no direction was issued for reconsideration of the petitioner’s bid.