Strict Compliance with Tender Conditions Is Mandatory: Uttarakhand HC

The Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, in M/s Super Construction Associates v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2026 SCC OnLine Utt 233), decided on January 19, 2026, reaffirmed the settled principle that technical evaluation in public tenders lies primarily within the domain of the employer and expert committees, and judicial review is confined to examining arbitrariness, mala fides, or perversity in the decision-making process.

The dispute arose from a Notice Inviting Tender issued by the Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency for road upgradation works. The petitioner’s technical bid was rejected by the Procurement Evaluation Committee on four grounds: (i) identical machinery certificates were submitted by multiple bidders, indicating that the same equipment had been leased to more than one contractor; (ii) the diploma certificate of the proposed technical personnel was unreadable; (iii) the bank certificate evidencing access to credit facilities did not conform to the prescribed format; and (iv) the authority letter permitting reference to the bidder’s banker was also not in the mandated format.

Challenging the rejection, the petitioner contended that construction machinery is used in phases and can be shared between contractors, that the name of the technical personnel appeared elsewhere in the records, and that the bank documents substantially complied with tender requirements. The petitioner also questioned acceptance of another bidder’s technical bid.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court undertook a detailed examination of the Instructions to Bidders and the Standard Bidding Documents. The Court held that Clause 4.2 expressly requires bidders to demonstrate assured access to construction equipment, readable proof of technical qualifications, and banker certifications strictly in the prescribed format. The purpose of these conditions, the Court observed, is to protect the employer from execution delays and performance risks.

On the issue of machinery, the Court accepted the State’s contention that leasing the same set of equipment to multiple bidders defeats the very object of the qualification criteria. If two contractors claim access to identical machinery, availability to both at critical stages cannot be guaranteed, potentially compromising quality and timelines. The employer was therefore justified in rejecting the petitioner’s bid for non-compliance with this essential requirement.

With respect to technical personnel, the court held that legible qualification documents are indispensable. Merely mentioning the individual’s name elsewhere in the bid does not cure the defect where the diploma certificate itself is unreadable, as the employer must independently verify the credentials of personnel proposed for execution of the works. The Court further found that the bank certificate and authority letter submitted by the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory format prescribed in the bidding documents, particularly due to the omission of contact details such as fax number and email ID. These requirements were not treated as procedural formalities but as substantive safeguards enabling the employer to directly communicate with the bank if necessary. Non-compliance therefore constituted a material defect.

The High Court reiterated that tender evaluation is a commercial and technical function entrusted to expert bodies. Constitutional courts do not sit in appeal over such decisions and must refrain from substituting their own assessment unless the process is demonstrably arbitrary or mala fide. No such infirmity was shown in the present case.

The Court also declined to examine the eligibility of the successful bidder, holding that once the petitioner’s own technical bid was validly rejected, it lost locus standi to challenge the qualification of competing bidders.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that strict adherence to tender conditions is mandatory and that courts will not interfere with bona fide technical evaluations carried out by competent authorities in the public interest.