M/S Romesh Construction Co Th Romesh Chander vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary, Public Works (R And B) Department, Jammu And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Romesh Construction Co., filed a writ petition challenging the technical evaluation result dated 03.12.2025 for e-NIT No.15 of 2025-26, issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) Department, Jammu (Respondent No.2). The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.3 was declared a responsive bidder despite not fulfilling mandatory conditions, specifically by uploading an affidavit not duly attested by a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/Executive Magistrate, violating Clause 2.2.1 and Note 2.2.1(a) of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD). The petitioner sought to prevent the opening of financial bids until their objections were considered. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Chief Engineer) contended that Respondent No.3's affidavit had a minor issue with the attesting judge's initials/signatures being missing/invisible, but clarification was sought and obtained, confirming its authenticity.

Held

The Court held that the clarification sought by the tendering authority regarding the attestation of the affidavit was permissible under Clause 5.4.5 of the Manual of Procurement of Works, 2022. The Court found that the issue pertained to the authenticity of an affidavit that already existed at the time of bid submission and did not involve introducing new documents or substantively modifying the bid. The clarification obtained confirmed the affidavit's authenticity, leading the authority to rightly treat Respondent No.3 as a responsive bidder. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, and Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mubai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, emphasizing that courts should refrain from interfering in contractual matters and tender processes unless there is gross illegality or arbitrariness. The Court found no such grounds for interference in this case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the technical evaluation result declaring Respondent No.3 as a responsive bidder is arbitrary and illegal, violating mandatory conditions of the e-NIT and SBD, specifically concerning the attestation of the affidavit required under Clause 2.2.1 and Note 2.2.1(a) of the SBD? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Respondent No.3's bid was non-responsive because the uploaded affidavit lacked the mandatory attestation by a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/Executive Magistrate. They contended that the official respondents improperly declared the bid as responsive, giving undue benefit to Respondent No.3. The petitioner relied on Clause 9(i) of the Qualification Information, which stipulated the requirement for such an attested affidavit. Respondents' Arguments: Respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that the authority inviting bids has the discretion to determine if a bidder meets tender conditions and that the evaluation was conducted in strict conformity with the tender terms. They submitted that the missing initials on the affidavit were a minor procedural issue, and clarification was sought and obtained from the attesting magistrate, confirming the affidavit's authenticity. They relied on Clauses 5.4.4 and 5.4.5 of the Manual of Procurement of Works, 2022, which permit seeking clarifications on existing documents.