Tender objections to bid responsiveness must be decided by a speaking order, with acceptance subject to that decision.

The petitioner challenged the Technical Evaluation Committee’s decision declaring its bid for the operation and maintenance of Uttarakhand’s 108 Emergency Response Services non-responsive, and its decision declaring respondent no. 4’s bid technically responsive.

The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 4 was ineligible because a joint-venture partner’s contract with the Assam Government had been terminated.

The respondents had not disclosed the reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s bid, and the petitioner had not yet objected to respondent no. 4’s bid being accepted.

The financial bids had been opened, and respondent no. 4 was declared L-1.

1. Whether the petitioner’s bid was properly declared non-responsive when the reasons for that decision had not been disclosed

2. Whether respondent no. 4’s bid was properly declared responsive despite the alleged termination of a joint-venture partner’s contract

The judgment cites no statute, tender provision, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It provides for a procedural remedy: the petitioner may submit objections to both the rejection of its bid and the acceptance of respondent no. 4’s bid, and the respondents must decide those objections by a speaking order.

The acceptance of respondent no. 4’s bid is subject to the outcome of that decision.

Because the respondents had not disclosed why the petitioner’s bid was non-responsive, and the petitioner had not yet formally objected to respondent no. 4’s bid, the Court considered it inappropriate to decide the parties’ competing eligibility arguments at that stage.

It instead directed the petitioner to raise its objections and required the respondents to issue a reasoned decision, preserving the effect of that decision on respondent no. 4’s bid.

It disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file objections within two days and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order within the following three days.

Acceptance of respondent no. 4’s bid was made subject to the outcome of that decision.

The directions would not benefit the petitioner if it failed to make its representation within 48 hours.