Discrepancy in Signatures Justifies Technical Disqualification: Patna High Court

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna, in M/s Shubhraj Construction v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 12120 of 2026), decided on August 25, 2026, held that a material discrepancy between the signatures on an affidavit uploaded on the e-procurement portal and the original affidavit could justify technical disqualification under the tender conditions. The Hon’ble Court further held that where an opportunity to explain the discrepancy has been granted but not availed within the stipulated period, a subsequent claim of violation of natural justice cannot be sustained.

The dispute arose from Revised Short Term Tender Notice No. 03/2025-26 dated June 30, 2025 issued by the Nagar Parishad, Mokama for execution of works under the Nal-Jal Scheme. The petitioner participated in the tender for all eight groups. Following a complaint by M/s Prarthana Construction alleging concealment of existing commitments, manipulation of documents and other irregularities, a three-member enquiry committee found the allegations to be baseless and incorrect. Subsequently, at its meeting on June 15, 2026, the Technical Tender Committee compared the affidavit uploaded on the e-procurement portal with the original affidavit and found a discrepancy in the signatures, resulting in the petitioner being declared technically disqualified under Clause 21(1) of the Notice Inviting Tender.

The petitioner contended that Clause 21(1) did not contemplate mismatch of signatures as a ground for disqualification and that the issue had already been examined during the earlier enquiry. It was further submitted that, even if there was a discrepancy, the same was a curable defect and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain or rectify it. The respondents, however, submitted that the discrepancy rendered the document incomplete or non-compliant and that the petitioner had been granted three days to submit its claim, objection or explanation.

The Hon’ble Court observed that Clause 21(1) required documents to be submitted in the prescribed manner and in complete form. It held that furnishing a document necessarily carries with it the requirement that the document be duly executed and authenticated by the bidder. A material discrepancy in the signature between an uploaded document and the original directly concerns its authenticity and due execution and could not be treated as a mere technical variation.

Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Court reiterated that the tendering authority is ordinarily the best judge of its tender conditions and that judicial interference in tender matters is limited to cases involving arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or bias. The Court found no material indicating that the Technical Tender Committee had acted on any extraneous consideration or applied a criterion outside the tender conditions.

The Hon’ble Court further held that the petitioner had been specifically informed of the discrepancy and granted three days to submit its claim or objection with comments. Since the petitioner failed to avail itself of that opportunity within the stipulated period and submitted its representation only on June 27, 2026, it could not contend that it had been denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court found no ground to interfere with the decision of the Technical Tender Committee and dismissed the writ application.