Timelines and mandatory certification requirements in tenders are sacrosanct; failure to comply warrants disqualification without judicial interference.

The Petitioner, a sole proprietorship, participated in a tender invited by the Respondent (NTPC) for the procurement of biomass pellets via the GeM Portal

Clause 6(C) of the Invitation for Bids (IFB) required bidders to submit technical experience documents duly certified by an "Independent Statutory Auditor of their Company" or a "specified Third-Party Inspection Agency (TPIA)"

The Petitioner initially submitted documents certified by its Chartered Accountant

On March 20, 2026, the Respondent requested specific TPIA-verified documents by a deadline of March 24, 2026

The Petitioner first provided certification from "Madre Certification Pvt. Ltd," which was not an empaneled/specified TPIA

Although the Petitioner eventually obtained a certificate from an approved agency ("BSCIC Certifications") on March 24, it failed to submit or upload it within the prescribed time due to alleged portal issues, eventually submitting it physically on March 27

Consequently, the Respondent disqualified the Petitioner for failing to meet technical requirements within the stipulated timeframe

1. Whether the disqualification of the Petitioner for failure to submit specified TPIA certification within the prescribed deadline was arbitrary or unlawful

2. Whether the court should exercise judicial review to waive a procedural technicality in a commercial tender

The court primarily applied the principles of judicial review in administrative action as established in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, which mandates that courts must exercise restraint in tender matters unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or irrationality

It applied the principle that a contract is a commercial function where "principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance"

The court further relied on the doctrine that tender timelines and cut-off dates are sacrosanct to ensure equal treatment of bidders

Additionally, the court noted that a bidder who participates in a process without challenging the terms (Clause 6(C)) is precluded from challenging those terms after being disqualified

The Court observed that Clause 6(C) was an essential condition of the IFB and clearly mandated certification by either a statutory auditor (for companies) or a specified TPIA

Since the Petitioner was a sole proprietorship, the requirement for a specified TPIA was mandatory

The Court found that the Petitioner’s failure to submit the correct certification by the deadline of March 24, 2026, was a fatal lapse, as subsequent attempts to cure deficiencies cannot be entertained without compromising the integrity of the bidding process

It rejected the Petitioner’s claim of ambiguity in the clause, noting that the IFB provided a list of specified agencies

Furthermore, the Court held that while the Respondent had discretionary power under Clause 25.2 to waive minor irregularities, it was not legally bound to do so; refusing to relax mandatory timelines for one bidder does not constitute arbitrariness

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Respondent’s decision to disqualify the Petitioner was lawful and strictly in accordance with the tender terms

No mala fides or irrationality was found in the decision-making process

The challenge to the validity of the conditions was rejected as the Petitioner had already participated in the process

All pending applications were disposed of