Oral Order:

1. Heard Sri S. Shanti Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri E. Samba Siva Pratap, Ld. Additional Advocate General for the Respondent No.1 and Sri N. Bharat Babu, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

                  “It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondents, particularly 2nd to 4th respondents in not considering the petitioners tender vide e-tenders for ZONE-II as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the well-established principles of law and consequently direct the respondents more particularly 2nd to 4th respondents to consider the tender application of the petitioner in e- tender notification vide Lr.No.Proc./FRK Tenders/ KMS- 2025-26 Dt.18-09-2025, as per the e-tender document Lr.No.Proc./FRK Tenders/ KMS-2025-26 Dt.18-09-2025 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders, as the Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”

3. Vide Order of this Court dated 31.10.2025, while putting the Respondents on Notice, had directed the parties not to further process the present Tender. It is submitted that even by the date of filing of the present Writ Petition that is on 20.11.2025, one M/s. Anant Ram Foods was already granted Tender and Letter of Acceptance (LOA) was also issued. The Tender Notification was issued on 18.09.2025. As per the terms of the Tender conditions, the technical bid was opened on 24.10.2025. The Writ Petitioners were disqualified in the technical bid on the ground that the Writ Petitioners have not tendered all the documents in terms of Clause-3 of the Tender document titled as “Documents to be furnished along with Application for Registration”. It transpires from the facts that Clause-3.14 mandates the bidder to file self declaration/undertaking that the bidder is a manufacturing firm and it has such plant and machinery for manufacturing of FRK which complies with BIS standards (IS 17853:2022). Admittedly, the Writ Petitioners have failed to comply with this self declaration. Clause-3.14 Tender Condition is usefully extracted hereunder:

                  “3.14. Self-Declaration/undertaking by the manufacturing firm on the firm should have plant and machinery for the manufacturing of FRK as per BIS standards IS 17853:2022.”

4. The Respondents have filed Counter-Affidavit. They have placed on record the Tender Document. Ld. Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause-3.14 of the Tender Condition and would submit that the compliance of tender conditions is mandatory. He would also submit that about 12 entities were qualified for the financial bid and amongst them one M/s. Anant Ram Foods was declared as “L1‟ and LOA (Letter of Acceptance) was also issued on 29.10.2025. Ld. Additional Advocate General would further submit that the process was transparent and the competition was also healthy inasmuch as about 12 entities were selected and have participated in the Financial Bid.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner No.1 seeks indulgence of this Court to permit it to participate in the Tender process inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner No.1 was a supplier under the previous Tender Notification. This Court has specifically posed a query as to whether the Writ Petitioner No.1 has anywhere mentioned in the Affidavit that it is a manufacturing firm and that it has such plant and machinery for manufacturing of FRK which complied with the BIS standards. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has not pointed out anywhere in the Affidavit that such an Application has been made.

6. Be that as it may, it is a settled law that the bidders are required to scrupulously comply with the Tender Conditions. This Court has considered Clause-3.14 of the Tender Condition which is neither ambiguous nor unclear. The Employer has clearly listed-out the number of documents which are required to be submitted by the bidders in Clause-3 of the Tender Conditions. About 18 documents are required to be submitted as per the Clause-3 of the Tender Conditions. The requirement of Clause-3.14 of the Tender Conditions does not appear to be optional as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. In fact, the said document would disclose the capability of the Writ Petitioner. Clause-3 of the Tender Conditions deals with the documents to be furnished along with the Application for Registration. Clause-3.14 (extracted supra) seeks a Self-Declaration/undertaking to be given by the manufacturing firm that the firm has the plant and machinery for manufacturing of FRK as per BIS Standards IS 17853:2022. The purpose for which the Self-Declaration is sought in this regard would form the fundamental basis in determining the capability of a manufacturer. The Self-Declaration was sought seeking manufacturing firm authenticating to the effect that the said firm has the plant and machinery of FRK with certain industrial standards called as BIS standards. The present employer has sought this undertaking from the manufacturing firms (prospective bidders) in order to ensure seamless supply of FRK which can happen only by possessing such plant and machinery with BIS standards. Therefore, it cannot be said that Clause-3.14 is an insignificant condition and the non-compliance of which does not go to the root of the matter. Having considered the nature of declaration required, this Court is of the view that such declaration is essential and therefore is indispensable.

7. As contended by the Ld. Additional Advocate General that the competition was also healthy inasmuch as the Companies which were qualified for the Financial Bid, which is ultimate round, are about 12 in number. This apart, even before the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court, the Financial Bid was opened and LOA has also been issued in favour of M/s. Anant Ram Foods. However, the Writ Petitioner has not chosen to implead M/s. Anant Ram Foods as one of the Respondents (Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another : (2016) 16 SCC 818 - Para-18).

8. It is settled law that the Courts would be loath in interfering in tender matters, particularly, where the bidder is disqualified on account of non- submission of necessary documents. It is a matter of fact that during the process of bid verification, the Officers are required to go through voluminous material in respect of each bidder. Under these conditions, unless the bidder scrupulously conforms to the Tender Conditions, it becomes difficult for assessment and evaluation of the bids if relaxations are permitted to be interdicted during the process of verification.

9. View of this Court is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sorath Builders v. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Ltd., : (2009) 11 SCC 9 in para Nos. 17, 26 and 27 which is usefully extracted hereunder:

                  “17. We also find on record that the tender submitted by the appellant was the lowest and the same was accepted as the same was found to be reasonable, tenable, plausible and valid. The High Court went beyond its jurisdiction in setting aside the decision of the University in accepting the bid of the appellant. We are of the opinion that there is no fault or arbitrariness in the decision-making process of the University. The said decision cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable. Respondent 1 submitted his pre-qualification documents late for which only he is to be blamed.

                  26. In W.B. SEB v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 451] this Court while considering the issue with regard to the process of tender held : (SCC p. 467, para 24)

                  “24. … where bidders who fulfil pre- qualification alone are invited to bid, adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-by by branding it as a pedantic approach, otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to the rule of law and our constitutional values.”

                  (emphasis supplied) It was also held : (SCC p. 467, para 24)

                  “24. … The very purpose of issuing rules/instructions is to ensure their enforcement lest the rule of law should be a casualty.”

                  It was further held : (SCC p. 471, para 31)

                  “31. … The contract is … awarded normally to the lowest tenderer which is in public interest [and that] it is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited.”

                  27. Following the aforesaid legal principles laid down by this Court, we are of the considered opinion that Respondent 1 was negligent and was not sincere in submitting his pre-qualification documents within the time schedule laid down despite the fact that he had information that there is a time schedule attached to the notice inviting tenders. Despite being aware of the said stipulation he did not submit the required documents within the stipulated date. Pre-qualification documents were received by Respondent 2 University only after the time schedule was over. The terms and conditions of the tender as held by the Supreme Court are required to be adhered to strictly, and therefore, Respondent 2 University was justified in not opening the tender submitted by Respondent 1 on 1-12-2008, which was late by three days. According to us no grievance could also be made by Respondent 1 as lapse was due to his own fault.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

10. View of this Court is also fortified by the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corpn. v. Anoj Kumar Agarwala : (2020) 17 SCC 577, wherein Para Nos.14 to 16 are usefully extracted hereunder.

                  14. The law on the subject is well settled. In Bakshi Security & Personnel Services (P) Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd. [Bakshi Security & Personnel Services (P) Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd., (2016) 8 SCC 446] , this Court held: (SCC p. 453, paras 14-16)

                  “14. The law is settled that an essential condition of a tender has to be strictly complied with. In Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273] this Court held as under: (SCC p. 276, para 6)

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  “6. … The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories—those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance with the condition in appropriate cases.‟

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  15. Similarly in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548] this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 571-72, para 66)

                  “(i) if there are essential conditions, the same must be adhered to;

                  (ii) if there is no power of general relaxation, ordinarily the same shall not be exercised and the principle of strict compliance would be applied where it is possible for all the parties to comply with all such conditions fully;

                  (iii) if, however, a deviation is made in relation to all the parties in regard to any of such conditions, ordinarily again a power of relaxation may be held to be existing;

                  (iv) the parties who have taken the benefit of such relaxation should not ordinarily be allowed to take a different stand in relation to compliance with another part of tender contract, particularly when he was also not in a position to comply with all the conditions of tender fully, unless the court otherwise finds relaxation of a condition which being essential in nature could not be relaxed and thus the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction;

                  (v) when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with;‟

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  16. We also agree with the contention of Shri Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilised to make a fresh bargain between parties.”

                  15. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly relied upon Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818] , and paras 14 and 15 in  particular, which state: (SCC p. 825)

                  “14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous — they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word “metro” in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.

                  15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  16. It is clear even on a reading of this judgment that the words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous—they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. Given the fact that in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the appellant would have no power to condone lack of such strict compliance. Any such condonation, as has been done in the present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which must be interfered with by a constitutional court.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

11. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit besides being belated inasmuch as the Respondents have already declared L1 and Letter of Acceptance (LOA) had also been issued on 29.10.2025.

12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

13. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.