'Evaluation In Tender Matters Is Based Entirely On Documents Furnished By Bidder': Patna HC Upholds Disqualification Over Inconsistent Eligibility Disclosures

The Patna High Court has upheld the disqualification of a contractor from a tender process, holding that bidders are under an obligation to make “reliable and consistent” disclosures regarding eligibility-related particulars and that contradictory disclosures may amount to misrepresentation.

A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid in a tender process for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Buildings in Gaya district.

The petitioner had initially been declared technically qualified pursuant to NIT No. 04SBD/2024-25 dated 25.11.2024. However, after complaints from rival bidders, the Tender Committee revisited the petitioner's bid and subsequently disqualified it through orders dated 31.12.2024.

Before the Court, the petitioner confined the challenge to Tender ID No. 81501 and argued that the rejection was based merely on a typographical error in the affidavit submitted by key personnel, namely Site Supervisor Chandra Bhan Singh. It was contended that corrected documents had later been furnished but were not considered.

The respondents, however, submitted that the explanation had been examined and rejected by the Tender Committee upon reconsideration. It was further pointed out that in a subsequent tender process under NIT No. 05/2024-25, the same Site Supervisor had submitted another affidavit disclosing a different length of experience.

The Court noted that in the present tender, the affidavit dated 07.12.2024 disclosed the Site Supervisor's age as 41 years and his experience as 28 years. However, in the later affidavit dated 05.02.2025, the same individual claimed 33 years of experience while omitting disclosure of his age altogether. The Bench observed:

“It is well settled that in tender matters, the evaluation is based entirely on the documents furnished by the bidder, and the responsibility of making a full, fair and consistent disclosure rests upon the bidder itself.”

The Court further held:

“The requirement is not merely of disclosure, but of reliable and consistent disclosure, particularly in respect of eligibility-related particulars.”

Rejecting the petitioner's plea that the discrepancy was merely typographical, the Court held that the variation in experience claimed in separate tender processes, coupled with omission of age in the subsequent affidavit, weakened the credibility of the explanation.

The Court observed that the inconsistencies related to a material aspect of eligibility and could not be treated as peripheral or insignificant. It held that the disclosures “partake the character of misrepresentation of material particulars.”

The Bench further held that tender authorities were justified in treating the disclosures as unreliable, particularly because the tender conditions expressly barred post-submission clarifications.

Holding that the decision-making process of the Tender Committee did not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Case Title: Ram Pukar Singh v. State of Bihar.

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1840 of 2025.

Appearance: Mr. Prashant Kashyap and Mr. Kaustubh Prakash for the Petitioners. Mr. Amish Kumar and Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar for the Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order