Tendering Authority's power to cure minor document deficiencies through clarifications is entitled to judicial deference.

The Petitioner, the incumbent duty-free operator at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, challenged the tender evaluation process for a fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 20.01.2026

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 (AAI) exhibited hostile discrimination by allowing Respondent No. 2 (Nuance Group) to rectify bid deficiencies—specifically unsigned Chartered Accountant documents and the use of digital instead of manual signatures—while denying similar indulgence to the Petitioner

The Petitioner contended that AAI violated the AAI Commercial Manual, 2025, by communicating via private email instead of the Central Public Procurement (CPP) Portal and utilizing an undisclosed third-party email domain

During proceedings, Respondent No. 2 was declared the successful bidder

1. Whether the Respondent Authorities adopted inconsistent standards and practiced hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 by permitting Respondent No. 2 to rectify bid deficiencies post-deadline.

2. Whether the deviation from the mandatory CPP Portal communication method and the use of private/third-party email domains invalidated the transparency and integrity of the procurement process.

3. Whether the Court should exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with the expert administrative decision of the tendering authority.

The Court primarily applied the principles of limited judicial review in contractual matters as established in Tata Motors Ltd. v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (2023) 19 SCC 1, which mandates judicial restraint and deference to the tendering authority's technical expertise

N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) 6 SCC 127, holding that interference is only warranted if the decision-making process is vitiated by palpable arbitrariness, mala fides, or patent illegality

Interpretation of Clause 7.8.5 of the RFP and the AAI Commercial Manual, which expressly allow the authority to seek "shortfall documents" or clarifications to prevent rejection on hyper-technical grounds

The Court reasoned that the power to seek shortfall documents under Clause 7.8.5 of the RFP is a deliberate contractual provision meant to ensure substantive competition

The Court found no discrimination because the opportunity to cure deficiencies was extended uniformly to all bidders, including the Petitioner

Regarding Respondent No. 2’s signatures, the Court determined that the missing counter-signatures on two pages of a voluminous document were "minor and curable" deficiencies, and the authority's decision to allow rectification was an expert judgment entitled to deference

The deviation from the CPP Portal was justified by a documented "technical glitch" and cured by marking copies to all bidders, thereby maintaining transparency

The Court dismissed the "third-party email" allegation as vague and unsubstantiated, noting that the Petitioner failed to prove any actual prejudice or breach of confidentiality

The Court affirmed that the tendering authority is the best judge of the materiality of bid deficiencies

The final holding established that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate arbitrariness or mala fides requisite for judicial intervention under Article 226

The writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the Petitioner