Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a challenge against the technical disqualification of a bidder in a tender for repair and rehabilitation of bridges under National Highway 60. The matter was adjudicated by a Single Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha.

The Court upheld the decision of the West Bengal Public Works Department (PWD) to reject the bid of the petitioners at the technical evaluation stage, citing non-compliance with mandatory bid conditions. The judgment stated the sanctity of the tender process and the equal treatment of all bidders, refusing to allow post-facto rectification of technical deficiencies.

Also Read: Supreme Court : ‘Rights and Duties Are Two Sides of the Same Coin’; Directs Court Masters to Record Only Advocates ‘Physically Present and Arguing’ with One Assisting Counsel

The dispute arose from the rejection of the petitioners' bid submitted in response to a Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) for a project involving repair and rehabilitation of distressed bridges on National Highway 60 (New National Highway 14) under Package 4. The petitioners, The Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition challenging their disqualification during the technical evaluation phase.

According to the authorities, the petitioners were disqualified for failing to fulfil six specific criteria outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP). These included:

(a) Deletion of critical points (Sl. 9 to 13) from the Letter Comprising the Technical Bid Statement format as specified in Appendix-IA of the RFP; (b) Absence of the methodology certificate for calculating net worth as required by Clause 2.2.2.9(ii); (c) Submission of certificates from the statutory auditor regarding bid capacity and ongoing commitments (value of 'B') without the mandatory Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN); (d) Submission of certificates for eligible projects also lacking UDIN; (e) Failure to provide details of ongoing works as required in Appendix-IA, Annexure VIII; (f) Omission of a compliance certificate under Clause 2.2.1(d) concerning land border disclosure.

In response, the petitioners argued that:

• The omitted points (Sl. 9 to 13) pertained only to joint ventures, and since they were bidding as a company, these were deemed inapplicable.

• The statutory auditor's certificate for net worth and bid capacity did include the UDIN.

• Details of ongoing works were submitted in tabular form with all relevant data.

• The land border certificate should not be a ground for rejection as the petitioner company is Indian and executing an Indian project.

• All alleged defects were minor and curable in nature, not warranting outright disqualification.

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision in Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 273] to argue that strict adherence to non-essential conditions was not required, and ancillary conditions may be waived.

The State respondents opposed the petition, asserting that the deficiencies were substantial and directly impacted the petitioners' eligibility. It was argued that permitting post-submission rectification would violate Article 14 of the Constitution by affording unequal treatment. It was further submitted that the required information applied uniformly to all bidders, not just joint ventures, and misinterpretation of bid terms by the petitioners could not be attributed to the authority.

The Court reviewed the contentions and materials placed on record and concluded that the rejection of the petitioners' bid was justified.

On the issue of missing entries from the technical bid format, the Court recorded: "On a plain reading of the relevant clauses of the Notice Inviting Bid, it does not appear that the details which the petitioners ought to have supplied but have not supplied... are restricted to and meant for or applicable to joint ventures only." It noted that the petitioners misread the requirements and failed to furnish necessary disclosures.

With respect to the UDIN requirement, the Court observed: "UDIN is a very vital piece of information which the petitioners failed to provide in the prescribed manner. Furnishing of UDIN has been made mandatory for all audit and assurance functions... from 1st July, 2019."

Regarding the claim that the ongoing works data had been submitted, the Court stated: "Details of the ongoing work of the petitioners were not properly submitted... The prescribed format in which the details were to be disclosed was a part of the bid document."

On the argument related to the land border certificate, the Court found: "Without the required certificate it was not possible for the authority to ascertain as to whether the bidder would proceed to engage a sub-contractor or not."

Addressing the reliance on Poddar Steel Corporation, the Court distinguished the facts, stating: "On a perusal of the Notice Inviting Bid it does not appear that the documents insisted upon by the authority are ancillary or subsidiary in any manner... Each piece of document and data are extremely vital for ascertaining the eligibility, credibility and ability of the bidder to perform and conclude the work put to tender."

It further recorded: "It will be highly improper to permit a bidder to cover the defects after the same has been detected at the technical evaluation stage. The same will certainly be contrary to the principle of equality to be maintained by the authority."

Also Read: “Availability of Drug for Rare Disease at Economical Price a Material Factor”: Delhi High Court Declines Interim Injunction in Patent Suit Over Risdiplam

The Court also referred to two Supreme Court decisions:

• Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr. [(2016) 16 SCC 818], where it was held that "the employer of the project, having authored the tender document, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements... unless there is mala fide or perversity..."

• Agmatel India Private Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom & Ors. [(2022) 5 SCC 362], reaffirming the same principle.

The Court concluded that no mala fide or procedural error was evident in the authority's actions and affirmed the finality of its interpretation of the bid conditions.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court ordered:

"The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed."

It declined to interfere with the rejection of the petitioners' bid and refused any relief permitting post-bid submissions.

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Jaydip Kar, Senior Advocate; Ayan Banerjee, Advocate; Sameer Parekh, Advocate; Sumit Goel, Advocate; Debjani Sengupta, Advocate; Jayant Bajaj, Advocate; Ruchi Krishna Chauhan, Advocate; Tulika Sil, Advocate; Paulomi Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Samrat Sen, Additional Advocate General; Pantu Deb Roy, Advocate (Advocate General's Panel); S. Guha Biswas, Advocate

Case Title: The Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 5137 of 2025

Bench: Justice Amrita Sinha

[Read/Download order]