Click the Play button to listen to article

The Patna High Court has held that the requirement of furnishing a tender document necessarily includes the requirement that the document be duly executed and authenticated by the bidder. The Court observed, “the requirement of furnishing a document necessarily carries with it the requirement that the document should be duly executed and authenticated by the bidder.”

A Division Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Shubhraj Construction challenging its technical disqualification in a tender floated by Nagar Parishad, Mokama for execution of works under the Nal-Jal Scheme.

The petitioner had participated in Revised Short Term Tender Notice No. 03/2025-26 dated 30.06.2025 and submitted bids for all eight groups. During the tender process, a complaint was made by M/s Prarthana Construction alleging concealment of existing commitments, manipulation of documents and other irregularities. A three-member enquiry committee was constituted and subsequently found the complaint to be baseless and incorrect.

The tender process remained pending and the bid validity period expired. The petitioner thereafter furnished its unconditional consent for extension of the bid validity. On 15.06.2026, the Technical Tender Committee compared the affidavit uploaded on the e-procurement portal with the original affidavit submitted by the petitioner and found a discrepancy in the signatures. The petitioner was consequently declared technically disqualified under Clause 21(1) of the Notice Inviting Tender.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 21(1) of the NIT did not contemplate mismatch of signatures as a ground for technical disqualification. It was further submitted that the petitioner's documents and signatures had already been verified by the three-member enquiry committee, which had found the complaint baseless. It was also argued that even assuming there was a discrepancy in the signatures, the defect was curable and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain or rectify it.

The Court considered whether the respondents were justified in disqualifying the petitioner under Clause 21(1) of the NIT on the ground of the discrepancy in signatures. The Court held that documents required to be furnished under the tender conditions had to be submitted in the prescribed manner and in complete form. It observed that the requirement was not merely to upload an affidavit, but to ensure that the affidavit uploaded corresponded with and was the same as the original affidavit submitted by the petitioner. It observed:

“In our considered view, the requirement of furnishing a document necessarily carries with it the requirement that the document should be duly executed and authenticated by the bidder. A material discrepancy in the signature appearing on the uploaded document, when compared with the original document, directly concerns the authenticity and due execution of the document and cannot be treated as a mere technical or insignificant variation. The Technical Tender Committee was, therefore, justified in examining the discrepancy and determining whether the document satisfied the requirements of the tender.”

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not brought on record any relevant material to dislodge the findings recorded by the Technical Tender Committee. The High Court therefore held that the respondents were justified in treating the discrepancy in the documents as a ground for disqualification under Clause 21(1) of the NIT and that the decision did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

On the issue of natural justice, the Court noted that the petitioner had been specifically informed about the discrepancy and was granted three days to submit its claim, objection and comments. However, the petitioner did not submit any objection within the stipulated period and instead submitted its representation only on 27.06.2026. The Court observed that once an opportunity is duly afforded, a person cannot complain of violation of natural justice merely because the opportunity was not availed.

The Court accordingly found no ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents.

Case Title: M/s Shubhraj Construction v. State of Bihar and Ors

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12120 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Shubham, Advocate; Mr. Ranvir Pratap Singh, Advocate; Ms. Shambhavi, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.G.; Mr. G.R. Shahi, A.C. to A.G.; Mr. Rahul Kumar, A.C. to A.G.

For the Nagar Parishad, Mokama: Mr. Anand Gaurav, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: