Tendering authority’s interpretation of eligibility prevails; specific certifying entities cannot be mandated unless explicitly required.

The Petitioner challenged the Letter of Empanelment (LoE) dated 26.12.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 (NICSI) in favor of Respondent No. 2 (Onextel) for ‘Message Gateway Services of Government of India’

The Request for Empanelment (RFE), as amended by Corrigendum No. VI, mandated a "valid" CMMI Level 3 or above certification

Respondent No. 2, the L1 bidder, submitted a CMMI Level 5 certificate issued by ‘UKCert’

The Petitioner (L3 bidder) alleged that the certificate was invalid because UKCert is not an authorized partner of ISACA/CMMI Institute, the proprietary owners of the CMMI framework

NICSI’s Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) reviewed representations from the Petitioner, received conflicting clarifications from ISACA and UKCert, and ultimately upheld the validity of the certificate for tender purposes

The Petitioner moved the Court in February 2026, after the financial bids were opened and the LoE was issued

The court emphasized the principle of judicial restraint in contractual matters, holding that the author of a tender is the best person to understand and interpret its requirements (Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. [para 21]; Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom [para 21]).

The employer has the inherent authority to interpret or even deviate from tender terms if applied uniformly to all bidders (Central Coalfields Limited v. SLL-SML [para 21]).

Furthermore, if a tender condition does not specify a particular issuing authority for a certificate, a bidder cannot be disqualified for providing one from a competent entity (Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Ors. [para 29]).

Finally, interference in tender processes is impermissible if the challenge is belated or if the process was transparent and fair

The Court observed that Corrigendum No. VI did not explicitly mandate that the CMMI certification must originate from an ISACA-authorized partner

Since NICSI’s technical experts (TEC) interpreted "valid" to include certifications from non-ISACA entities and applied this standard uniformly across multiple bidders (including L4), there was no evidence of favoritism or arbitrariness

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s claim regarding ISACA’s exclusive proprietary rights to issue such certificates involved disputed questions of fact that could not be determined in writ jurisdiction

Regarding the Petitioner's conduct, the Court found it significant that the Petitioner had access to the Respondent’s technical documents since October 2025 but only raised objections in January 2026 after losing the financial bid

The Court also highlighted that Respondent No. 2’s bid was significantly lower (saving ₹70 crores in public money) and that any disruption to the transition of services scheduled for April 1, 2026, would be contrary to public interest

The Court held that NICSI, as the tendering authority, acted within its rights to accept the UKCert certification in the absence of a specific restrictive clause in the RFE

The challenge was deemed fatal due to delay and laches

While dismissing the plea, the Court advised NICSI to explicitly clarify the required issuing entities for certifications in future tender documents to avoid similar controversies

All pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs