Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. With regard to the reliance placed by the petitioners upon Clause 2.8 of the bid document, learned counsel submitted that no such stipulation existed which made the submission of hard copies of documents a mandatory requirement, non- compliance of which would render a bidder non-responsive. It was contended that the petitioners had misconstrued the said provision, inasmuch as the essence of the clause was to ensure submission of requisite documents in conformity with the prescribed format, and not to mandate submission in hard copy as a condition precedent for responsiveness.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that upon receipt of the bids, the competent committee examined the same and prepared a Technical Bid Evaluation Report, which was duly signed by the members of the committee on 21.04.2025, and thereafter resolved to open the financial bids on 22.04.2025. With regard to the contention of the petitioners that submission of hard copies was mandatory, it was submitted that no such absolute or compulsory condition was prescribed under the relevant terms and conditions of the tender document. On the contrary, as per Clause 7 of the E-NIT, it stood clearly provided that the tender form was to be submitted online only. Thus, non-submission of hard copies by a bidder could not be construed as rendering such bid technically non-responsive, so long as the requisite documents were already uploaded online in conformity with the prescribed procedure. Learned counsel also invited attention to Clause 7(B) of the E-NIT, which categorically provided that the bid was required to be submitted online and that, after such submission, the subsequent process would be carried out entirely through online mode.

17. A bare perusal of Clause 7 of the E-NIT dated 24.03.2025 leaves no manner of doubt that the tender forms were required to be submitted online only and that the process of evaluation was also to be carried out through the online portal.

(D.B. SAW/646/2025 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) [2025:RJ-JP:33426] (13 of 20) [CW-7522/2025] Corrigendum No. 2 dated 04.04.2025 extended the timeline for submission of hard copies "if applicable", but the expression "if applicable" itself indicates that the submission of hard copies was not a sine qua non for responsiveness. The core requirement was online submission, which all bidders, including the petitioner and the private respondent, duly complied with.

18. The reliance placed by the petitioners on Clause 2.8 and Clause 3.2.1(d) of the bid document is misconceived. Clause 2.8 merely outlines the test of responsiveness, but does not stipulate hard copy submission as a mandatory condition. Likewise, Clause 3.2.1(d), read harmoniously with Clause 7, demonstrates that online submission was the substantive requirement, while hard copy submission, if undertaken, was ancillary in nature. Moreso, in case of any discrepancies between the documents submitted online and documents submitted offline, the documents submitted shall prevail, thus the submission of documents in physical form is merely a formality and not a binding requirement and non-submission of physical documents cannot be termed as a material deviation. The interpretation suggested by the petitioners would amount to rewriting the tender terms, which is impermissible in judicial review.