Judgment
Page No.# 1/31 GAHC010141142026
2026:GAU-AS:12583
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3587/2026 M/S LEOTECH PROCESS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BLOCK NO. C4, PLAT NO. 136, NEW AUTO NAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA-52000 ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, JAKIR HUSSAIN.
VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS, 256-A, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.
4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF ROLLING STOCK ENGINEER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
Page No.# 2/31 GUWAHATI MALIGAON KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.
5:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER LUMDING DIVISION NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY DRM OFFICE COMPLEX LUMDING 782447 6:ROSE VENTURES AND M/S THARU AND SONS JOINT VENTURE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PARAC BUILDING C/O THARU SONS KATIPAYIROAD RAJAGIRI P.O. SOUTH KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- ERNAKULAM KERALA-68310 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Deka, CGC Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate
· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.08.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No
· Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Page No.# 3/31 the Petitioner. Ms. R. Deka, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 6.
PREFACE 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the decision of the Respondent Authorities to hold the Petitioner’s bid technically non-responsive for two reasons, i.e.:
(i) The Banking Reference Certificate which is required to be submitted by the Petitioner, though submitted, was not certified by a Chartered Accountant with stamp, signature, and membership number.
(ii) The Petitioner did not have the technical experience/competence of setting up a Mechanized Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 tonnes of linen per shift while washing minimum of 4 tonnes of linen per shift for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period, i.e., the current year and the 3 previous financial years.
3. This Court is therefore called upon to adjudicate, while exercising the powers of judicial review, as to whether the decision
Page No.# 4/31 of the Respondent Authorities to reject the Petitioner’s technical bid is required to be interfered with.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ALONGWITH THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE PRESENT JUDGMENT 4. The Respondent No. 5 had floated a Notice Inviting Tender No. Mech-LMG-ET-14-2025-26 dated 19.02.2026 whereby bids were invited from eligible bidders for execution of the work, “Turnkey Contract for the Supply, Installation, Commissioning of Plant/Equipment & Related Infrastructure and Operation of Mechanized Laundry at Badarpur, Collection of soiled linen from coaches from Agartala, Silchar and Sairang Railway Stations and loading of washed linen into coaches at Agartala, Silchar and Sairang Railway Stations for a period of 10 years under the BOOT (Build-Own-Operate-Transfer) basis and transportation of linen from BOOT Laundry to nominated stations, including onboard distribution of linen to passengers, blanket repairs & stitching of curtains.” 5. The said Notice Inviting Tender stipulated various Eligibility Conditions. There were Special Financial Criteria as well as Special Technical Criteria. The Special Technical Criteria, more particularly,
Page No.# 5/31 at Serial Nos. 1 and 2, being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder:
S.N o.
Description Confirmation Required Remarks Allowed Documents Uploading 1 As proof of technical experience /competence, the tenderer(s) must satisfy the following criteria:
Should have Setting up a Mechanised Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 Tonnes of linen per shift while washing minimum of 4 tonnes of linen per shift for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period, i.e., current year and three previous financial years. In the case above, laundry services should have been rendered to one
or
more
of
the
following establishments/clients: i) Three star hotels and above in India approved by Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India. ii) Any hospital in India with minimum of 100 bed capacity. iii) Corporate entity in India with an annual turnover of at least Rs.500 crores. iv) Any Airlines in India under DGCA. v) Indian Railways. vi) Indian Central/State Govt.
/PSU establishment/Central or State Govt.
Undertakings.
No No Allowed (Mandatory) 2 Definition of Similar Work: Should have Setting up a Mechanised Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 Tonnes of linen per shift while washing minimum of 4 tonnes of linen per shift for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period, i.e., current year and three previous financial years. In the case above, laundry services should have been rendered to one or more of the following establishments/clients: i)Three star hotels and above in India approved by Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India. ii)Any hospital in India with minimum of 100 bed capacity iii)Corporate entity in India with an annual turnover of at least Rs.500 crores. iv)Any Airlines in India under DGCA.
No No Allowed (Mandatory)
Page No.# 6/31 v)Indian Railways. vi)Indian Central/State Govt.
/PSU establishment/Central or State Govt.
Undertakings. Details for the conditions of Liquidity mentioned in the Tender Document Technical Criterion Clause No. 1.1.
( Click here to download Format)
6. In addition to the said Notice Inviting Tender, there were various other details which have been specifically mentioned in the e-tender document. Amongst these, Part-I of the e-tender document is under the heading “System of Tendering” (for short, “the SOT”).
7. Clause 1.0 of the SOT is under the heading “Eligibility Criteria”.
Clause 1.1 relates to the “Technical Criterion”. The said Clause 1.1 is relevant, along with the Note attached thereto. However, for the purpose of the present dispute, Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (vi) and (vii) are relevant. Accordingly, Clause 1.1 and Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (vi) and (vii) of the SOT are reproduced hereinunder:
“1.1 Technical Criterion:
As proof of technical experience/competence, the tenderer(s) must satisfy the following criteria:
Page No.# 7/31 Should have Setting up a Mechanised Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 Tonnes of linen per shift while washing minimum of 4 tonnes of linen per shift for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period, i.e., current year and three previous financial years.
In the case above, laundry services should have been rendered to one or more of the following establishments/clients:
i) Three star hotels and above in India approved by Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India.
ii) Any hospital in India with minimum of 100 bed capacity.
iii) Corporate entity in India with an annual turnover of at least Rs.500 crores.
iv) Any Airlines in India under DGCA.
v) Indian Railways.
vi) Indian Central/State Govt. /PSU establishment/Central or State Govt.
Undertakings.
Work done for Private individual shall not be considered.
NOTE:
(i) For the purpose of Technical Criterion above, a Mechanised Laundry "Unit" shall mean a Laundry facility installed in a single premise.
Page No.# 8/31 (ii) For substantiating the requirement of having washed at least an average quantity of 4 Tonnes of linen per shift in one site for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period i.e. current year and three previous financial years, the tenderer(s) shall be required to furnish documentary evidence as per ANNEXURE-XII certified by one or more institutional clients mentioned in Para 1.1 above. It shall be noted that only information submitted in the Annexure XIII will be considered. Documents in any other forms like Letter of acceptance, completion certificate etc. shall not be considered.
(iii) For the laundry of minimum capacity of 4 Tonnes of linen per shift in one site which the average quantity of 4 Tonnes per shift has been washed for at least one year, the tenderer should submit information as per Annexure – XII (A).
(iv)…………….
(vi) Tenderer shall submit "satisfactory performance certificate" from some of the major institutional clients.
(vii) Railway shall reserve the right to seek independent confirmation of credentials submitted by the tenderer from the respective issuing agencies about the satisfactory performance of the work. Tenderer shall submit bills and other verifiable documents establishing that they fulfill the above technical eligibility criteria.” 8. It is also of relevance that below the Clauses and the Note reproduced hereinabove, another Note has been stipulated which being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder:
Page No.# 9/31 “Note:
· Capacity of 4 Ton shall mean the capacity of 4 Ton linen per shift. This shall be reckoned as the output of the main washing equipment in the laundry (washer-cum-extractor or tunnel washer) in a shift of 8 hrs. i.e. 24 hours. Tenderer has to submit the documents to prove that he has operated/installed minimum 4 Ton capacity laundry per shift.
· Tenderer shall submit "satisfactory performance certificate" from some of the major institutional clients. Railway reserves the right to seek independent confirmation of the credentials submitted by the Tenderer from the respective issuing agencies about the satisfactory performance of the work.” 9. Clause 1.3 of the SOT is the “Financial Criterion”. Sub-Clause A relates to “Annual Turnover” and Sub-Clause B stipulates the “Liquidity”. Clause 1.3, along with Sub-Clauses A and B and the Note are reproduced hereinunder:
“1.3. Financial Criterion:
The tenderer(s) shall satisfy the following financial criteria:
A. Annual turnover: The bidder should have an aggregate financial turnover not less than 1.5 times the advertised Bid value during the last three previous financial years and in the current financial year up to the date of opening of the tender. The audited balance sheet reflecting financial turnover certified by chartered accountant with her stamp, signature and membership number shall be considered. Bidders shall submit the requisite information as per (To be submitted
Page No.# 10/31 as per Annexure-XIX).
The tenderers shall submit requisite information along with copies of Audited Balance Sheets duly certified by the Chartered Accountant/Certificate from Chartered Accountant duly supported by Audited Balance Sheets.
For tenders with opening date between April to September months, Certificate from Chartered Accountant issued on the basis of Government approved documents like GST Returns/VAT Statement to ascertain financial turnover of the latest financial year shall be considered, in terms of Railway Board File No.
2016/EnHM/06/02 dated 18.10.2018.
B. Liquidity: The bidder should have access to or has available liquid assets, lines of credit and other financial means to meet cash flow that is valued at 5% of the estimated bid value net of applicant's commitments for other contracts. (To be submitted as per Annexure-XX & Annexure-XXI).
The audited balance sheet and/or banking reference certified by chartered accountant with her stamp, signature and member ship number shall be submitted by the bidder along with the bid. Banking reference should contain in clear terms the amount that bank will be in a position to lend for this work to the applicant /member of the Joint venture/consortium. In case the net current assets (as seen from the balance sheets) are negative only the banking references will be considered. Otherwise aggregate of the net current assets and submitted banking references will be considered for working out the liquidity.
The banking reference should be from a scheduled bank in India and it should not be more than 3 months old as on date of submission of bids.
In case of JV firms overall liquidity of JV firm shall be assessed by arithmetic sum
Page No.# 11/31 of liquidity of all members of JV.
Note:
1) It shall be noted that wherever, the certificate from the Chartered Accountant is mentioned, the Chartered Accountant should be the same who normally audits the accounts of the company.
2) In order to arrive at the Total Contract amount received during the last three financial years and in the current financial year in case of a JV firm, Total Contract amount received by the JV Firm or the arithmetic sum of contractual payments received by all the members of JV Firm in the previous three financial years and the current financial year up to the date of opening of tender shall be at least 150% of the advertised tender value of the work.
The "financial capacity" of the lead member of JV shall not be less than 51% of the financial eligibility criteria.
3) Contractual payment received by a Member in an earlier JV Firm shall be reckoned only to the extent of the concerned member's apportioned share in that JV firm for the purpose of satisfying compliance of the above mentioned financial eligibility criterion in the tender under consideration.” 10. Clause 1.4 of the SOT stipulates the “System of Tendering” and it is envisaged therein that a two packet system of tendering shall be adopted for the work and on the due date of opening, only the technical bid will be opened for scrutiny to ascertain the suitability of the tenderers for the work. However, the financial bid
Page No.# 12/31 of only those tenderers would be opened who qualify in the Technical Bid. It is also stipulated that the Earnest Money Deposit of tenderers who do not qualify as per the contents of the technical bid shall be returned to them after finalization of the tendering process.
11. Clause 1.4.1 of the SOT stipulates what the technical bid should comprise off. Sub-Clause (vi) of Clause 1.4.1.1 of the SOT is of relevance and the same is reproduced hereinunder:
“vi. List of similar works completed/on going in the qualifying period (i.e. current year and three previous financial years) should be provided as per Annexure-II & Annexure-III. Supporting documents / certificates from the organizations for which the tenderer(s) have worked should be enclosed. The authorized signatory of the organization should sign the certificates submitted by the tenderer(s). Certificates from private individuals for whom such works were executed shall not be accepted.” 12. Clause 1.4.1.2 of the SOT specifically refers to the “Financial Bid” and what it should contain. It is stipulated therein that a Financial (Price) bid shall consist of the schedule of rates, i.e., the unit cost offered by the tenderer for washing various items of linen.
13. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take note of that the Petitioner along with the Respondent No. 6 and other bidders participated in the said tender process. On 30.06.2026, the
Page No.# 13/31 Petitioner came to learn that the Petitioner’s technical bid was rejected by the Respondent Authorities as non-responsive technical bid and the same was uploaded on 01.07.2026. The Petitioner immediately submitted representations on 30.06.2026 and 01.07.2026.
14. It is the case of the Petitioner that only the bid of the Respondent No. 6 was considered technically responsive and as such, the financial bid of Respondent No. 6 was opened and uploaded on the portal of the Railway Authorities which indicates that the net offered rate value given by the Respondent No. 6 was Rs. 216,91,17,693.42p.
15. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the Petitioner’s bid, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 06.07.2026. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 09.07.2026 issued notice but was not inclined to pass any interim directions. However, subsequently, when the writ petition was listed before this Court on 15.07.2026, this Court, taking into account the respective submissions was of the opinion that the Petitioner was able to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim directions. Accordingly, this Court passed an interim direction to the effect that till the next date, no further
Page No.# 14/31 steps should be taken by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to grant the contract to any party.
16. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed the affidavit-in-opposition on 15.07.2026 itself wherein it was mentioned that the NIT specifically required that the bidder should have experience of setting up a Mechanized Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 tonnes of linen per shift and should have washed a minimum of 4 tonnes of linen per shift for a continuous period of 12 months during the qualifying period. Such laundry services should have been rendered to one or more of the establishments specifically enumerated in the NIT, namely hotels, hospitals, corporate entities, airlines, Indian Railways, Central/State Government establishments or PSUs and documentary evidence in support of the above requirement was mandatorily required to be furnished in the format prescribed in the relevant Annexures to the tender document.
17. It was further mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that in the said tender process, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 had participated. The Tender Committee, upon scrutiny of the bid documents submitted by the Petitioner, found that the Petitioner failed to submit valid and sufficient documents proving fulfillment of the prescribed Technical Eligibility Criteria and also failed to
Page No.# 15/31 establish execution of works conforming to the definition of “similar nature of work” as required by the NIT and accordingly, having found the Petitioner’s bid non-responsive. The rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid was for the following deficiencies i.e.
a) Failure to submit documents establishing compliance with the prescribed Technical Eligibility Criteria;
b) Failure to submit documents proving execution of works conforming to the prescribed definition of “similar nature of work”;
c) Failure to submit valid documents establishing liquidity in terms of the tender conditions, particularly the mandatory requirement of the Chartered Accountant certification of the banking reference.
18. It was further mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the experience certificate which was submitted by the Petitioner dated 13.06.2025 issued by the Office of the Director of Medical Education, Vijayawada could not be taken as the experience certificate, as the certificate did not mention setting up and operating a Mechanized Laundry within the scope of the work.
It was mentioned that under such circumstances, the Petitioner
Page No.# 16/31 could not be treated as experienced in a similar nature of work as stipulated in the tender conditions. It was further mentioned that as regards the eligibility criteria, the bidder was required to furnish a liquidity amount duly certified by the Chartered Accountant equivalent to 5% of the advertised tender value of Rs.
9,11,39,398.88p. However, the Petitioner submitted its liquidity amount of Rs. 7,15,89,187/-. The Petitioner though relied upon the banking reference of Rs. 9.11 crores, but the same was not certified by the Chartered Accountant, though such certification was mandatory requirement under the tender condition.
19. The Respondent No. 6 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was mentioned that there was no infirmity in the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid, inasmuch as the certificates which the Petitioner had submitted did not establish that the Petitioner had set up, installed and commissioned a Mechanized Laundry facility which is a mandatory requirement of the tender condition. It was further mentioned in the said affidavit- in-opposition that the tender in question is a BOOT (Build-Own- Operate-Transfer) project involving the establishment of an entirely new Mechanized Laundry facility together with the installation, commissioning and operation of sophisticated machinery and allied infrastructure. Consequently, prior experience in merely washing
Page No.# 17/31 linen using an existing facility cannot be equated with the experience of setting up a Mechanized Laundry as specifically mandated in the tender. It was further mentioned that the Petitioner, though relied upon Annexures-XII, XII(A), XII(B) and XII(C) of the tender document but failed to show that it had submitted the mandatory documents in terms with Annexure-II of the tender document, which stipulates the bidder’s list of similar works completed during the qualifying period (Clause 1.1).
20. The Petitioner submitted a common affidavit-in-reply to the affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as well as the Respondent No. 6 wherein various details were provided including the Annexures which were submitted by the Petitioner along with the tender documents. It was further mentioned that the contention that the setting up of a Mechanized Laundry should have been reflected in Annexure-XII of the tender document itself is misconceived.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 21. Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Clause 1.3 of Part-I of the Notice Inviting Tender which is with
Page No.# 18/31 the heading “System of Tendering” stipulates the “Financial Criterion”. Referring to Sub-Clause (A) of Clause 1.3 of Part-I of the Notice Inviting Tender, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is a requirement of submission of the Audited Balance Sheets duly certified by the Chartered Accountant/Certificate from the Chartered Accountant duly supported by the Audited Balance Sheets. The learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute that the Petitioner had duly submitted the Audited Balance Sheets duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. Referring to Sub-Clause (B) of Clause 1.3 of Part-I of the Notice Inviting Tender, the learned counsel submitted that the liquidity aspect have been duly mentioned which should be valued at 5% of the estimated bid value of the applicant’s commitments for other contracts. In that regard, the learned counsel submitted that to prove the liquidity, there is a requirement of submission of documents as per the format prescribed in Annexure-XX and Annexure-XXI of the tender document.
22. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that taking into account that the Petitioner did not have the 5% of the estimated bid value as the liquidity in its balance sheet during the financial year 2025-2026 as the Petitioner’s liquidity was only Rs.7,15,89,187/- which otherwise should have been Rs.9.11
Page No.# 19/31 Crores, the Petitioner had submitted a Banking Reference in the form of a Bank Certificate in the format provided in Annexure-XX of the tender document wherein the Senior Manager of the ICICI Bank certified that the said Bank was willing to provide overdraft/credit facility to the extent of Rs.9.2 Crores to meet the Petitioner’s working capital requirement for executing the said work. The learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the format of Annexure-XX of the tender document would make it clear that the said document need not be certified by the Chartered Accountant inasmuch as the said Certificate has to be only issued by the Senior Bank Manager of the concerned Bank along with the address which was duly done so as would be apparently seen at Page No.214 of the writ petition.
23. The learned counsel referring to the ground stipulated that the Banking Reference document should be certified by the Chartered Accountant on the basis of the second paragraph of Clause 1.3B of Part-I of the Notice Inviting Tender submitted the same to be completely misplaced inasmuch as, it is the Audited Balance Sheet which has to be certified by the Chartered Accountant and in the circumstance, the Audited Balance Sheet contains liquid assets, lines of credit and other financial means which would meet 5% of the estimated bid value, there is no requirement for issuance of
Page No.# 20/31 certificate in terms with Annexure-XX of the tender document. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that it is under such circumstances, the words have been used as “and/or” between the two documents namely the Audited Balance Sheet and Banking Reference.
24. The learned counsel for the Petitioner as regards the second ground for rejection submitted that the said ground is completely misconceived inasmuch as, the Petitioner duly submitted the required documents in terms with Annexure-XII, XII(A), XII(B) and XII(C) of the tender document which are different and separate aspects dealing with the technical experience i.e. setting up a Mechanized Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 Tonnes of linen per shift while washing minimum of 4 Tonnes of linen per shift for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period i.e. current year and three previous financial years. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that insistence upon by the Respondents that Annexure-XII of the tender document should contain setting up of the Mechanized Laundry is completely misconceived inasmuch as, it is in Annexure-XII(A) of the tender document, the said aspect is conceptualized.
25. The learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore submitted that
Page No.# 21/31 this is a case wherein the Respondent Authorities have not only misread the terms and conditions of the tender documents, but also apparently for oblique purposes chosen to read in such a manner in order to hold the Petitioner technically nonresponsive.
The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that this is a case which would come within the ambit of malice in law and absolute perverse reading of the terms and conditions of the contract for which interference is called for.
26. Ms. R. Deka, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that insofar as the liquidity aspect of the Petitioner is concerned, the Banking Reference Certificate has to be certified by the Chartered Accountant and in that regard, referred to first sub-paragraph of Clause 1.3B of the SOT. Insofar as the technical eligibility of the Petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner failed to submit valid and sufficient documents proving fulfillment of the prescribed technical eligibility criteria of establishing execution of works conforming to the definition of similar nature of works as required by the NIT. The learned CGC submitted that the similar nature of work has been defined in the “Special Technical Criteria” mentioned in the tender document to mean setting up a Mechanized Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 tonnes of linen per
Page No.# 22/31 shift while washing a minimum of 4 tonnes of linen per shift for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period, i.e., the current year and 3 previous financial years.
27. The learned CGC submitted that this similar work has to be carried out in the establishments as mentioned in Clause 1.1 of the “Technical Criterion” Clause of the SOT. However, the Petitioner failed to submit any certificate evidencing execution of works conforming to the prescribed definition of similar nature of work.
The learned CGC further submitted that the certificate upon which the Petitioner relied is the certificate issued by the Office of the Director of Medical Education, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh dated 13.06.2025 wherein the description of the work mentioned is supply of linen and mechanized laundry service, which would not include the requirement of setting up of a mechanized laundry service.
28. Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 submitted that though the learned counsel for the Petitioner had mentioned about the submission of Annexures- XII, XII(A), XII(B) and XII(C) of the tender document but what is required to be looked into is whether the Petitioner had submitted any certificate as defined as similar nature of works
Page No.# 23/31 completed/ongoing during the qualifying period, as per Annexures- II and III to the tender document. The learned counsel, further referring to Clause 1.4.1.1(vi) of the SOT submitted that supporting documents/certificates from organizations for which the Petitioner had worked should be enclosed. The certificates which have been enclosed by the Petitioner would not show that at one site, the Petitioner had set up a Mechanized Laundry. The learned counsel further submitted that as the tender in question is a BOOT (Build- Own-Operate-Transfer) project involving the establishment of an entirely new mechanized laundry facility together with the installation, commissioning and operation of sophisticated machinery and allied infrastructure, prior experience in merely washing linen using an existing facility cannot be equated with the experience of setting up a Mechanized Laundry as specifically mandated in the tender.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 29. From a perusal of the materials on record as well as the respective submissions, it appears that on account of two grounds, the Petitioner’s bid was held to be technically non-responsive.
30. Let this Court, therefore, deal with each reason assigned
Page No.# 24/31 independently.
REJECTION OF THE TECHNICAL BID ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF CERTIFICATION OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO THE BANKING REFERENCE DOCUMENT 31. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that Clause 1.0 of the SOT specifically refers to the “Eligibility Criteria”. Clause 1.1 of the SOT is the “Technical Criterion” and Clause 1.3 of the SOT is the “Financial Criterion”.
32. The Financial Criterion so set out are also Eligibility Criteria and cannot be confused with the Financial Bid which is specifically mentioned in Clause 1.4.1.2 of the SOT.
33. In the previous segments of the present judgment, this Court has already quoted the relevant portion of Clause 1.3 of the SOT.
34. From a perusal of the same, it is seen that the bidder has to have an annual turnover of not less than 1.5 times the advertised bid value during the last 3 previous financial years and in the current financial year up to the date of opening of the tender. To prove the same, the audited balance sheet reflecting financial turnover certified by a Chartered Accountant with her stamp,
Page No.# 25/31 signature and membership number shall be considered and in that regard, the bidder has to submit the requisite information in Annexure-XIX of the tender document. In addition to that, the bidder has also to submit copies of the audited balance sheets certified by the Chartered Accountant/certificate from the Chartered Accountant duly supported by the audited balance sheets. Apart from the annual turnover, there is a requirement for the bidder to possess liquidity. In other words, the bidder’s access to or having available liquid assets, lines of credit and other financial means to meet the cash flow. The liquidity required is 5% of the estimated bid value, net of the applicant’s commitment for other contracts.
35. In the instant case, as would be seen from the admitted stand of both the parties, there was a requirement for the bidder to have liquidity of Rs. 9.11 crores and the Petitioner’s liquidity, admittedly, for the year 2025-26 was Rs. 7,15,89,187/-. This would be seen from the certificate which was submitted by the Petitioner duly certified by the Chartered Accountant in Annexure-XXI of the tender document. In order to cover up the shortfall in liquidity, it was permissible to provide a Banking Reference containing in clear terms, the amount that the bank would be in a position to lend for the work to the applicant/member of the joint venture of the
Page No.# 26/31 consortium. The said Banking Reference should be from a scheduled bank in India and should not be more than 3 months old as on the date of submission of the bid. The said bank certificate has to be issued in Form 20 in Annexure-XX of the tender document.
36. The Petitioner duly submitted the said Bank Certificate issued by the Senior Bank Manager of ICICI Bank, wherein it is mentioned that ICICI Bank was willing to provide an overdraft/credit facility to the extent of Rs. 9.20 crores to meet the Petitioner’s working capital requirement for executing the contract in question. There is no quarrel that the said document was submitted inasmuch as it is duly admitted by the Respondent Authorities. However, the question arises as to whether the said document has to be certified by the Chartered Accountant inasmuch as one of the grounds set out is that the said Banking Reference Certificate was not certified.
37. The opening sentence of the first sub-paragraph of Clause 1.3B of the SOT reads as under:
“The audited balance sheet and/or banking reference certified by chartered accountant with her stamp, signature, and membership number shall be submitted by the bidder along
Page No.# 27/31 with the bid.” 38. This Court has also taken note of Annexure-XX of the tender document which stipulates the format for Banking Reference for Liquidity.
39. In view of the stipulation in the opening sentence of the first sub-paragraph of Clause 1.3B of the SOT that the audited balance sheet and/or banking reference certificate be certified by the Chartered Accountant with her stamp, signature and membership number mentioned therein, it is clear that not only the audited balance sheet, but the Banking Reference has also to be certified by the Chartered Accountant.
40. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the words “and/or” used between the words “audited balance sheet” and “banking reference” means that insofar as the Banking Reference is concerned, it is not necessary to be certified by the Chartered Accountant. In the opinion of this Court, the said submission is misconceived inasmuch as the words “and/or” is used between the words “audited balance sheet” and “banking reference” to indicate that the audited balance sheet would be sufficient to be submitted along with the certificate of the
Page No.# 28/31 Chartered Accountant if the audited balance sheet would be sufficient to meet the liquidity. Else, there would be the necessity of submission of the Banking Reference which also has to be certified by the Chartered Accountant.
41. This Court, at this stage, finds it relevant to observe that the condition mentioned in first sub-paragraph of Clause 1.3B of the SOT that the Banking Reference has to be certified by the Chartered Accountant, is therefore a requisite condition. This Court thus in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot hold that the exercise of the Tendering Authority to reject the Petitioner’s technical bid for not conforming with the mandate of first sub- paragraph of Clause 1.3B of the SOT was illegal or arbitrary.
WHETHER THE PETITIONER MET THE TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 42. In the Notice Inviting Tender, and more particularly in the section specific to Special Technical Criteria, which has already been quoted hereinabove, the definition of “similar work” has been defined. The said definition required the bidder should have set up a Mechanized Laundry of minimum capacity of 4 tonnes of linen per shift, while washing a minimum of 4 tonnes of linen per shift
Page No.# 29/31 for a continuous period of 12 months in the qualifying period.
43. This Court also takes note of that Clause 1.4.1.1(vi) of the SOT categorically requires that the bid should comprise the list of similar works completed/ongoing in the qualifying period and that this list should be provided as per Annexure-II and Annexure-III of the tender document. In addition to that, there was a requirement of submitting supporting documents/certificates from the organizations for which the bidders had worked.
44. The Petitioner herein has laid emphasis on a certificate dated 13.06.2025 issued by the Office of the Director of Medical Education, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
45. A perusal of the said certificate does not show that the Petitioner had set up the Mechanized Laundry. Rather, the name of the work is supply of linen and Mechanized Laundry service. In the opinion of this Court, the said certificate does not satisfy the requirement in terms with Clause 1.4.1.1(vi) of the SOT read with the definition of “similar work”.
46. In addition to that, Annexure-XII and Annexure-XII(A) of the tender document should not be confused with the requirement in terms with Annexure-II of the tender document inasmuch as, in
Page No.# 30/31 Annexure-II of the tender document, it is categorically mentioned that the list of similar works completed in the qualifying period is to be provided referring to Clause 1.1 of the SOT.
47. Under such circumstances, it is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that the rejection of the Petitioner’s technical bid on the ground of not fulfilling the Technical Eligibility Criteria cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.
CONCLUSION 48. In view of the above analysis, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merits, for which the writ petition stands dismissed.
49. Interim order stands vacated.
50. However, in the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.09.03 04:20:02 +05'30'
Page No.# 31/31