W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 1 of 22

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 01.04.2026

Judgment delivered on: 15.04.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 12042/2025 & CM APPL. 49146/2025

M/S ANANTAA-MRKR-ARINFRA (JV) PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

Versus

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ONGC) &

ANR. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Tiku Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Biju P. Raman, Mr. Badri Venkata Reddi,

Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary, Ms. Usha

Nandini V, Mr. John Thomas, Ms Nandana

Harikrishnan and Mr. Monu Singh,

Advocates

For the Respondent : Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. R.V.

Prabhat, Mr. Daksh Pandit, Mr. Shubham

Sharma, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Yash

Wardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman, Advocates

for R-1

Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 2 of 22

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by

the decision of the Respondent No. 1/ONGC dated 29.07.2025 [‘impugned

decision’] to disqualify its bid in Tender No. ZV9SC25002, issued on

06.03.2025 for the Jetty Revamping Project. The impugned decision

proceeds on the premise that the Petitioner failed to submit a valid GST

certificate along with its bid thus non-compliance of Clause No. 10.5.1 of

the Instructions to Bidders [‘ITB’] at Annexure-I of the Tender Document

and Clause 4 (j) of the Bid Evaluation Criteria [‘BEC’].

Factual Matrix

2. Facts relevant to the adjudication of the present writ petition are as

under: -

2.1 The Petitioner is a joint venture company engaged in infrastructure

development. Pursuant to the tender issued on 06.03.2025, the Petitioner

submitted its bid within the prescribed timelines along with all requisite

documents. At the time of submission of the bid on 19.06.2025, the

Petitioner’s GST registration was under process, and the Application

Reference Number [‘ARN’] dated 03.06.2025 bearing number

A360625004822D along with an undertaking dated 03.06.2025 was

provided by the Petitioner pursuant to the GST requirements at Clause No.

10.5.1 of ITB and Clause 4(j) of BEC of the bid. Subsequently, the

Petitioner obtained a permanent GST Registration Certificate issued on

23.06.2025.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 3 of 22

2.2 The Respondent, through emails dated 07.07.2025 and 12.07.2025,

disqualified the Petitioner on the ground of non-submission of a valid GST

certificate. The Petitioner availed the one-time representation mechanism

and submitted a detailed representation dated 15.07.2025, enclosing the

permanent GST certificate and an official clarification dated 14.07.2025, by

the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Government of Telangana, affirming that

the ARN is a valid document for tender participation.

2.3 It is stated that despite the Petitioner’s compliance, the Respondent

rejected the Petitioner’s bid vide the impugned decision dated 29.07.2025,

on the ground that a valid GST certificate was not submitted along with the

bid. The Petitioner contends that this finding is ex facie erroneous and

contrary to the record, as the ARN constitutes valid interim proof of GST

registration under law, and the permanent GST certificate was issued well

before the Respondent raised any query.

Submissions by the Petitioner

3. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits

that the rejection is ex facie arbitrary, contrary to the record, violative of the

tender conditions, and infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

3.1 He asserts that Petitioner has complied with all the GST requirements;

as it applied for GST registration on 03.06.2025 and obtained an ARN on

the same day, which is a statutory acknowledgment of a valid application;

and it also furnished an undertaking dated 03.06.2025 to provide the GSTIN

and subsequently obtained the GST registration on 23.06.2025, prior to any

evaluation or objection by the Respondent.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 4 of 22

3.2 He further submits that ARN is statutorily recognized as valid proof

of GST application and is sufficient for participation in tender processes, as

clarified by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) vide letter dated 14.07.2025.

He submits that the distinction between ARN and GST certificate is merely

procedural, and once GSTIN was granted, any perceived deficiency stood

cured. It is argued that a hyper-technical approach defeating substantive

compliance is impermissible in law

1

.

3.3 He contends that the Respondent has mischaracterised the tender

conditions by treating submission of a GST certificate as a rigid, mandatory

pre-bid requirement, however, a holistic reading of the tender document

shows that GST compliance could be established either through a certificate

or an undertaking and even permitted deferred submission. He submits that

the Petitioner satisfied both modes by submitting ARN, an undertaking, and

later the GSTIN, and therefore, the condition is at best directory and curable,

and not a ground for outright rejection.

3.4 He submits that the Respondent had the power to seek clarifications, it

failed to exercise such power fairly despite the Petitioner furnishing all

requisite information.

3.5 He further argues that the rejection led to elimination of competition,

resulting in a single-bid situation and award of the contract at a significantly

higher price, causing prejudice to the public exchequer. He invokes the

doctrine of substantial compliance, submitting that any minor deficiency

stood cured well before evaluation and could not justify disqualification.

1

Reliance is placed on ‘Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works’, (1991) 3 SCC 273,

at paragraph nos. 6 and 7.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 5 of 22

3.6 He submits that the rejection is arbitrary, disproportionate, and legally

unsustainable, seeking setting aside of the impugned decision with a

direction to treat its bid as responsive and consider it in the tender process.

Submissions by the Respondent No. 1

4. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits

that the requirement of submitting a valid GST Registration Certificate

along with the bid is a mandatory and essential condition of the tender;

reliance is placed on Clause No. 10.5.1 of the ITB and Clause 4(j) of the

BEC, which unequivocally stipulate that failure to furnish such a certificate

renders the bid liable to rejection. He submits that it is an admitted position

that the Petitioner did not submit a GST Registration Certificate by the bid

closing date and instead relied on an ARN, which, according to the

Respondent, is merely an acknowledgment of application and not equivalent

to a registration certificate, therefore, the Petitioner’s bid was rightly

rejected for non-compliance with an essential eligibility condition.

4.1 He further contends that the distinction between ARN and a GST

Registration Certificate is substantive and rooted in the statutory framework

of the CGST Rules, 2017 [‘CGST Rules’]. He submits that as per Rule 8(5)

of the CGST Rules, ARN only evidences a pending application, and a GST

certificate is issued upon due verification and approval by the authorities

under Rule 9 of the CGST Rules. Judicial precedents

2

have also recognized

that an ARN cannot substitute a valid GST registration certificate. He asserts

that it duly communicated the reasons for rejection to the Petitioner,

2

‘MDC Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs Employee Insurance Corporation’, 2025: DHC:797-DB, at

paragraph nos. 12, 13, 16, 17; ‘ASR Hospitals vs State of Andhra Pradesh’, (2021) SCC Online AP

2969, at paragraph nos. 23-26.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 6 of 22

considered its representation, and even sought an expert opinion from the

Corporate Finance Department [dated 21.07.2025, filed as Annexure R1

with the written submissions], which confirmed that ARN is not a valid

substitute. He submits that therefore, the decision was reasoned, informed,

and not arbitrary.

4.2 He submits that on the interpretation of tender clauses, the

Respondent argues that Clause 4(j) of BEC, requiring submission of a GST

certificate, is a pre-qualification and non-negotiable condition, whereas

Clause 4(k) of BEC, which permits undertakings, operates only at the post-

award stage in relation to invoicing and compliance for input tax credit. He

submits that these clauses function in distinct fields and cannot be conflated;

in the absence of GST registration, the bidder is legally incapable of issuing

valid tax invoices, rendering any undertaking ineffective. He submits that

the Petitioner’s attempt to rely on the undertaking clause to cure a

fundamental eligibility defect is therefore misconceived and contrary to the

scheme of the tender.

4.3 He also submits that permitting bidders without a valid GST

registration certificate to participate would create uncertainty and risk,

particularly in a high-value tender involving substantial public funds; since

GST registration is subject to approval, there is no guarantee that an

application would be accepted or processed in time, which could jeopardize

contract execution. He submits that the tender conditions, therefore,

justifiably require strict compliance at the bid stage to safeguard public

interest.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 7 of 22

4.4 Addressing the Petitioner’s reliance on other clauses, he clarifies that

Clause 10.5.2 of the ITB provides only a limited relaxation in cases where

additional GST registration is required for the executing office in a different

State, but it does not dispense with the mandatory requirement of possessing

and submitting at least one valid GST registration certificate at the time of

bidding. He submits that in the present case, the Petitioner admittedly had no

GST registration at all on the bid submission date, making it ineligible. He

states that the interpretation of the tender clauses advanced by the Petitioner

is erroneous and contrary to the plain language of the tender.

4.5 He further argues that the tendering authority, being the author of the

tender, is best placed to interpret its terms, and such interpretation should

not be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary or perverse

3

; in the

present case, the interpretation is consistent with the express terms and

serves the objective of ensuring compliance and certainty. He also contends

that the Petitioner has attempted to raise new arguments, particularly

regarding the undertaking clause 10.5.2 of ITB and 4(k) of BEC, which were

neither pleaded nor raised in earlier representations and therefore ought not

to be considered.

4.6 He submits that external documents, such as the clarification issued

by the GST authority, cannot override or influence the interpretation of

tender conditions; in any event, even such documents do not equate ARN

with a GST certificate.

Submissions by Respondent No. 3

3

Reliance is placed on ‘Afcon Infrastructure Ltd. vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr.’

2016 (16) SCC 818.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 8 of 22

5. Mr. Chetan Lokur, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits

that Notification of Award [‘NOA’] was issued in favour of Respondent No.

1 vide notification dated 21.11.2025.

5.1 He submits that pursuant to NOA, Respondent No. 3 has furnished a

Performance Bond/Insurance Security Bond of the value of Rs. 19.76 crore

to Respondent No. 1 and for the issuance of this bond, an amount of Rs. 1.68

crore was paid by Respondent No. 3. He submits that additionally,

Respondent No. 3 has progressed substantial amount of on-site and off-site

operational works and as such significantly taken steps towards execution of

the tender project.

5.2 He submits that Clause 10.5.1 of ITB makes it mandatory for every

bidder to have a valid GST registration certificate; Clause 4(j) clearly

stipulated that any offer made without a valid GST registration certificate is

liable to be automatically rejected, without exception; Clause 6.8.1 of the

Manual for Procurement of Goods requires every bidder to be registered

under GST legislation and to furnish the GST registration certificate in their

offer unless they are specifically exempted. He submits that the

interpretation of the Petitioner of Clause 10.5.2 of ITB is misplaced as the

first paragraph itself applies only to situations where the Contract Executing

Office is different from bidding office of the bidder, and it is only in such

cases that the bidder may submit the GST details of the Contract Executing

Office pursuant to being declared as the successful bidder.

5.3 He submits that the Petitioner had delayed, without explanation, to

file its application for GST Registration. He submits that the Tender

Document was released on 06.03.2025 whereas the application for GST

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 9 of 22

Registration was filed by the Petitioner as late as on 03.06.2025, i.e., nearly

three months after the tender document was published and no reasons have

been provided by the Petitioner for its delay in filing its delay in filing its

application for registration.

Findings and Analysis

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the relevant tender clauses and the annexures filed on record.

7. The tender clauses which are relevant for determining the dispute are

as under: -

ITB Clauses- :

“The bidder will have to bear all Income Tax liability both corporate and personal

tax

10.5 GST Liability on Supply of Services:

10.5.1 In accordance with the notification no.10/2017 Integrated Tax (rate) dated

28.06.2017 (as may be amended) issued under GST legislations, the liability to

pay 100% GST is on ONGC. Hence, the Bidder shall not include GST in their

quoted prices for the Services falling in the above notification.

The Bidder should quote the applicable GST, clearly indicating the rate and the

amount of GST included in the bid and the description of the respective service

(as per GST rules) under which the GST is payable.

In the contracts involving multiple services or involving supply of certain goods

or materials (which should be consumable in nature forming part of taxable

service) along with the services, the Bidder should give separate break-up for cost

of goods and cost of various services, and quote GST as applicable for the taxable

services and/or goods).

In case the GST is not quoted explicitly in the offer by the Bidder, the offer will

be considered as inclusive of all liabilities of GET and ONGC will not entertain

any future claim in respect of GST against such offers.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 10 of 22

In case, the quoted information related to various taxes and duties subsequently

proves wrong, incorrect or misleading:-

a) Payment towards GST shall be restricted to the GST amount as charged on

the Tax-Invoice' or the quoted GST rate, whichever is lower unless the same

is due to applicability of change in law clause. ONGC shall have no liability

to reimburse the difference in the duty/tax, if the finally assessed amount is

on the higher side.

b) ONGC will have the right to recover the difference in case the rate of

duty/tax finally assessed is on the lower side.

(i) (Applicable for Indigenous tenders):

The Service Provider should have a valid GST registration certificate under

GST legislation and a copy of such registration certificate should be

submitted along with the offer.

Service to be provided from outside the taxable territory of India:

As per GST rules, for Services received by ONGC in Taxable Territory of India

from a Service Provider from outside the taxable territory of India, who is not

required to be Registered under GST Law, the liability to pay GST lies with

ONGC. Therefore, such Bidder shall not include GST in the quoted prices, but

shall submit a declaration to the effect that they are not required to take GST

Registration in the State of Supply as per GST Provisions. However, at the time

of evaluation, GST as applicable shall be loaded on the portion of services which

attract GST.

In case the Bidder does not give break-up of the quoted prices, indicating the

components of taxable services and/or goods separately, the GST will be loaded

on entire quoted/Contract value for evaluation considering higher rates, if any, as

per the provisions of the statute.

10.5.2 In case Contract executing office(s) based on the tender scope of work are

different from bidding office of bidder, the bidder shall also provide details of

Contract executing office(s) based on the tender scope of work in their bid duly

indicating/providing their respective ONGC Vendor Code (if already available).

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 11 of 22

In case ONGC vendor code is not available for such contract executing location

of bidder, GSTIN and Bank account details etc. shall also be submitted by bidders

in their bid for creation of vendor code for such office.

If bidder indicates that details like GSTIV and Bank account details etc. of the

office identified by bidder in their bid for executing work, would be provided

only after they emerge as successful bidder, they shall provide the same at least

15 days before submission of first invoice, Such bidder shall provide an

undertaking to this effect.

…….”

[Emphasis Supplied]

BEC Clauses- :

“4.0 Offers of following kinds will be rejected:

……..

(j) Offers not accompanied with a copy of valid registration certificate under GST

Legislation of India.

(k) Offers not accompanied with an undertaking to provide all the necessary

compliances/Invoice/documents required under GST legislation for enabling

ONGC to avail Input tax (GST) credit.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

8. The issue which has arisen for consideration in this petition is whether

an ARN issued under Rule 8(5) of CGST Rules can be considered as a

temporary GST registration OR equivalent to regular GST registration

certificate, till regular GST certificate is issued to the bidder.

9. At the outset, we observe that Clause 10.5.1 of the ITB unequivocally

stipulates that the bidder “should have a valid GST registration

certificate….and a copy of such registration certificate should be submitted

along with the offer”. The language employed is clear, mandatory, and has

no ambiguity. This requirement is further reinforced by Clause 4(j) of BEC,

which expressly provides that offers not accompanied by a valid GST

registration certificate are liable to be rejected. The conjoint reading of these

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 12 of 22

provisions leaves no manner of doubt that possession and submission of a

valid GST registration certificate at the bid stage is stipulated as an essential

pre-condition to eligibility.

10. Respondent No. 1 has contended that Clause 8.3 of ITB at Annexure-

II of the Tender Document unequivocally mandates the contractor to bear all

tax liabilities, including GST, and to furnish all requisite compliances,

invoices, and documents to enable the Respondent to avail input tax credit

[‘ITC’]. It is contended that under Section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017 [‘Act

of 2017’], every supplier is liable to obtain GST registration, and in terms of

Section 31 of the Act of 2017, only a registered person is legally competent

to issue a valid tax invoice and since the successful bidder is a supplier

under the contract, it is mandatory for bidder to have GST registration in

accordance with Section 25 of the Act of 2017, which is granted under Rule

9 of the CGST Rules upon approval of the application filed under Rule 8(4),

failing which the Petitioner cannot issue tax invoices necessary for availing

ITC.

11. The Petitioner has fairly not disputed that having a GST registration

as per Clause 10.5.1 is an essential condition of the tender. However, it has

sought to contend that since the Petitioner held ARN as on 19.06.2025 (the

bid submission date) and the GST number was allotted on 23.06.2025 (prior

to evaluation of the bids) the Respondent No.1 ought to have taken into

consideration the post facto grant of GST registration and not insisted on a

strict compliance of Clause 10.5.1 of ITB. It has relied upon a letter issued

by Assistant Commissioner, Agapura circle, Hyderabad to contend that the

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 13 of 22

ARN can be validly relied upon by a bidder in tender processes as a proof of

GST registration.

12. The Petitioner’s contention that submission of an ARN as on

19.06.2025, coupled with a subsequent grant of GST registration on

23.06.2025, amounts to substantial compliance and therefore its bid has been

wrongly rejected by Respondent No.1, cannot be accepted by this Court.

The distinction between an ARN and a GST Registration Certificate is not

merely procedural but substantive in nature. An ARN is only an

acknowledgment of a pending application under Rule 8(5) of the CGST

Rules, whereas a GSTIN is granted only upon due verification and approval

under Rules 9 and 10 of the CGST Rules. Therefore, an ARN cannot, in law,

be equated with a valid registration certificate.

We note that Respondent No. 1 as well did not outrightly reject the

bid of the Petitioner and sought an opinion from the Corporate Finance

Department, Delhi to understand the legal effect of the grant of ARN vis-à-

vis GST registration number, the said opinion dated 21.07.2025, though

advisory, lends support to the Respondent’s understanding of the statutory

framework and reinforced the position that the Petitioner did not meet the

eligibility requirement on the bid submission date. It is thereafter that

Respondent No. 1 rejected the bid on 29.07.2025. The relevant part of the

opinion of Corporate Finance Department, Delhi dated 21.07.2025 read as

under: -

“In this context, it is clarified that, as per GST law, the ARN is merely an

acknowledgment of receipt of the application for GST registration in terms

of Rule-8(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 (FORM GST REG-02). It is a system-

generated number issued at the time of submission of the application and is

used mainly to track the status of the registration request. The GST

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 14 of 22

Registration Number (i.e. GSTIN), which is a 15-digit alphanumeric code,

is allotted only after due verification of the application and supporting

documents by the concerned GST authorities in terms of Rule-9 of CGST

Rules, 2017. Post such approval/deemed approval, a certificate of

registration is issued in FORM GST REG-06 in terms of Rule-10(1) of

CGST Rules, 2017.

In view of the above, from GST Law perspective, the submission of an

ARN cannot be considered equivalent to holding a valid GST Registration

Certificate. However, while the tender conditions constitute contractual

terms between the parties, considering the commercial aspects involved,

the matter may be examined at unit level in the context of the specific

tender conditions…….”

In our considered opinion the stand taken by Respondent No. 1 that

ARN is neither a temporary GST registration nor equivalent to regular GST

registration is in conformity with the CGST Rules. The issue framed at

paragraph no. 08 is answered accordingly.

We find no legal basis for the opinion expressed by the Assistant

Commissioner, Agapura circle, Hyderabad in his letter dated 14.07.2025.

13. The Division Bench of this Court, in similar facts, by its judgement in

W.P. (C) 1072/2025 titled as ‘MDC Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.

Employee State Insurance Corporation’

4

, held that decision of tendering

authority to not accept ARN as a substitute for GST was valid and held as

under: -

“13. Apart from the aforesaid, though the Petitioner Company appears to

have applied for a new GST registration certificate, purportedly

acknowledged on 04.07.2024, by the Gujarat Commercial Tax Department,

it was only issued a Temporary Reference Number and not a Temporary or

a Provisional Registration Certificate in its name as the learned counsel for

the Petitioner Company would have us believe. It is apparent that the

Temporary Reference Number is only in the context of the application

4

2025: DHC: 797 - DB

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 15 of 22

submitted for GST registration and not the registration certificate itself. In

that view of the matter the reference to application for new registration for

GST certificate is irrelevant. Thus, we find that, prima facie, on the

aforesaid two grounds the Petitioner Company appears to have not fulfilled

the essential condition under clause 8 of the e-Tender Enquires, as on the

closing date of bid submission.

16. We have also perused the registration certificate dated 20.08.2024

issued in the name of the Petitioner Company which clearly indicates that

the same is w.e.f. 20.08.2024 and thus establishing, prima facie, that as on

the closing date of submission of the bids, the Petitioner Company did not

have in its possession a valid GST registration certificate.

17. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner

Company regarding violation of the principles of natural justice is

concerned, since the Petitioner Company did not fulfil the essential

eligibility condition as on the closing date of the bid submission held

above, we do not find it apposite to traverse the said submission in the facts

of the case.”

14. In the present case as well, it is an admitted position on record that the

Petitioner did not possess a valid GST registration certificate as on the bid

submission date i.e., 19.06.2025, and the GST registration certificate was

granted to the Petitioner only subsequently on 23.06.2025. Thus, it is

evident that the Petitioner failed to satisfy an essential eligibility condition

as on the crucial date of submission of bids. The subsequent grant of

registration cannot relate back to cure the initial ineligibility, nor can it be

relied upon to validate a non-compliant bid. Consequently, the Petitioner’s

reliance on post-bid compliance or alleged procedural relaxation is

misplaced and does not merit acceptance.

15. There were four entities which submitted bids and there is no dispute

that compliance of this condition of GST registration has been applied to

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 16 of 22

each of the said entities and no relaxation has been granted to any of the

bidders.

We note that in its communication dated 17.07.2025, Respondent No.

1 has observed that it has similarly rejected bids of another bidder in another

tender where the bidder did not have a GST registration. It is thus apparent

that Respondent No. 1 has been consistently insisting on a strict compliance

of this essential condition.

16. Respondent No. 1 has explained in detail that for performance of the

contract the successful bidder would necessarily have to possess a GST

certificate and this is expressed in the Tender Document. In this backdrop,

the Petitioner’s reliance on the ARN as a valid substitute for a GST

registration certificate is misconceived, as an ARN merely evidences a

pending application which is subject to scrutiny and may ultimately be

accepted or rejected by the competent authority. It does not confer any legal

status of registration for purposes of GST nor entitle the applicant to issue

valid tax invoices under the Act. Therefore, in the context of the present

tender, where compliance with GST provisions and the ability to facilitate

ITC are integral part to the contractual work, this Court finds that the

condition of possession of a valid GST registration certificate prior to

submission of the bid is a mandatory and essential condition. The absence of

such registration at the relevant time renders the Petitioner ineligible, and

refusal of Respondent No. 1 to permit such deficiency to be cured by a

subsequent grant of registration cannot be said to be unfair or arbitrary.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 17 of 22

17. The Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. and Anr. V. SLL-

SML (Joint venture consortium) and Ors.

5

in similar facts, where the

High Court had permitted a bidder to make good a deficiency in the

furnishing of the EMD, set aside the said judgment and held that the

decision of the tendering authority to not permit post bid submission

compliance of essential conditions ought not to be interfered while

entertaining the judicial review of tender process. The relevant paragraphs of

the judgment read as under:

41. In appeal, this Court in Poddar Steel [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh

Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273] accepted the theory of essential and non-

essential or ancillary or subsidiary terms of an NIT. It was held that the

cheque of Union Bank of India issued by Poddar Steel (though a deviation

from the terms of NIT) was sufficient for meeting the conditions of NIT,

the condition being ancillary or subsidiary to the main object to be achieved

by the condition and that the employer could waive the “technical literal

compliance” of the earnest money clause of NIT “specially when it was in

its interest not to reject the said bid which was the highest”. In other words,

this Court concluded that an essential term of the tender document could

not be deviated from but an ancillary or subsidiary or non-essential term

could be deviated from, and that the deviation could be without any

reference to potential bidders.

42. Unfortunately, this Court in Poddar Steel [Poddar Steel

Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273] did not at all advert to

the privilege-of-participation principle laid down in Ramana Dayaram

Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,

(1979) 3 SCC 489] and accepted in G.J. Fernandez [G.J.

Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488]. In other words, this

Court did not consider whether, as a result of the deviation, others could

also have become eligible to participate in the bidding process. This

principle was ignored in Poddar Steel [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh

Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273].

5

AIR 2016 SC 3814

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 18 of 22

43. Continuing in the vein of accepting the inherent authority of an

employer to deviate from the terms and conditions of an NIT, and

reintroducing the privilege-of-participation principle and the level playing

field concept, this Court laid emphasis on the decision-making process,

particularly in respect of a commercial contract. One of the more significant

cases on the subject is the three-Judge decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of

India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] which gave

importance to the lawfulness of a decision and not its soundness. If an

administrative decision, such as a deviation in the terms of NIT is not

arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, mala fide or biased, the courts will not

judicially review the decision taken. Similarly, the courts will not

countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful

bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation. This was quite

clearly stated by this Court (following Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union

of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651]) in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [Jagdish

Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] in the following words:

(SCC p. 531, para 22)

“22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent

arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its

purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and

not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of

judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of

contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is

a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts

are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural

justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is

bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power

of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in

assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial

review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at

the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The

tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a

civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary

grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out

of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to

self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial

review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final,

may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to

thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold.”

This Court then laid down the questions that ought to be asked in such a

situation. It was said: (Jagdish Mandal case [Jagdish Mandal v. State of

Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517], SCC p. 531, para 22)

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 19 of 22

“22. … Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual

matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself

the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the

authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;

OR

Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary

and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no

responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with

relevant law could have reached”;

(ii) Whether public interest is affected.

If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference

under Article 226.”

44. On asking these questions in the present appeals, it is more than

apparent that the decision taken by CCL to adhere to the terms and

conditions of NIT and the GTC was certainly not irrational in any manner

whatsoever or intended to favour anyone. The decision was lawful and not

unsound.

18. We are of the considered opinion that in these facts, the decision of

the Respondent No. 1 to not accept the Petitioner’s post facto registration of

GST ensured transparency and fairness as other bidders, who similarly did

not possess a GST certificate, may not have participated in the bidding

process.

19. This Court also finds no substance in the Petitioner’s reliance on

Clause 10.5.2 of ITB or the undertaking furnished under Clause 4(k) of

BEC. Clause 10.5.2 operates in a limited and specific context, namely where

the ‘executing office’ differs from the ‘bidding office’ and permits deferred

submission of GST registration for the ‘executing office’. It does not dilute

or override the primary requirement under Clause 10.5.1 of possessing and

submitting at least one valid GST registration certificate at the time of

bidding, by a bidder. Similarly, Clause 4(k) pertains to post-award

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 20 of 22

compliances relating to invoicing and input tax credit and cannot be

construed to defer compliance with an essential eligibility condition. The

Petitioner’s attempt to conflate these provisions is contrary to the plain

language and scheme of the tender.

The undertaking dated 03.06.2025 filed by the Petitioner with the bid

is unilateral and not contemplated as per Clause 10.5.1 or 10.5.2 of ITB.

20. In matters of tender conditions interpretation, particularly in the realm

of public procurement, the tendering authority is the best judge of its

requirements. It is a settled principle that the author of the tender document

is best placed to understand and interpret its terms, and such interpretation

ought not to be interfered with unless it is found to be arbitrary, perverse, or

mala fide.

In the present case, the interpretation adopted by the Respondent No.

1 is not only plausible but is firmly rooted in the express terms of the tender

and the governing statutory framework. No arbitrariness or irrationality can

be attributed to the decision-making process.

21. The Court is also mindful of the limited scope of judicial review in

tender matters. Interference is warranted only where the decision is vitiated

by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. The impugned

decision, having been taken in conformity with the tender conditions and

after due consideration of the Petitioner’s representation, does not suffer

from any such infirmity. On the contrary, acceptance of the Petitioner’s

interpretation would amount to rewriting the tender conditions and diluting

an essential eligibility criterion, which is impermissible in law.

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 21 of 22

22. The tender in question was published on 06.03.2025 and initially last

date for submission of the bids was 30.04.2025. The said date was extended

to 14.05.2025, further to 04.06.2025 and lastly to 19.06.2025.

The Petitioner is a joint venture entity and was incorporated on

29.05.2025 and it applied for GST on 03.06.2025. This circumstance led to

the Petitioner being unable to secure a GST registration prior to submission

of the bid as on 19.06.2025. Though, the constituents of joint venture entity

were aware about the tender conditions since 06.03.2025.

However, these circumstances are therefore of its (petitioner’s) own

doing and Respondent No. 1’s decision, to not condone the non-compliance

of absence of GST registration number, does not require any interference.

The Petitioner’s commercial interest cannot override the timelines and

requirements of tendering process of Respondent No. 1.

23. The Petitioner has contended that due to its disqualification

Respondent No. 3 remained the sole eligible bidder. It is contended that it

was therefore in the public interest that the Petitioner’s financial bid is

opened and the financial bids are re-evaluated, as it would lead to savings to

the public exchequer.

As per letter dated 17.07.2025 sent by Respondent No. 1 to the

Corporate Finance Department, Delhi, there were four bidders and two bids

(including the bid of the Petitioner) was rejected for non-responsiveness.

While Petitioner’s bid has been rejected for absence of GST number,

another bid

6

was rejected for non-submission of EMD only. No relaxation

can be granted in favour of the Petitioner alone for evaluation of financial

6

M/s Sandeep Builders Chandigarh

W.P.(C) 12042/2025 Page 22 of 22

bids as similar relaxation would have to then be granted by Respondent No.

1 in favour of the bidder who was excluded for non-submission of EMD.

Also, no provision of law has been cited before us to show that

Respondent No. 1 is precluded from accepting the bid of a sole eligible

bidder. There is no material before us to conclude that the Respondent No.

1’s decision to accept the financial bid of Respondent No. 3 is against the

public interest and/or public exchequer. We therefore find no merit in this

submission.

24. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Respondent’s

interpretation of the tender conditions is correct and legally sustainable,

while the Petitioner’s interpretation is misconceived and contrary to the

express terms of the tender. Consequently, no infirmity can be found in the

impugned decision dated 29.07.2025, and this Court does not deem it

appropriate to interfere with the same.

25. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending application, if

any, disposed of.

26. No order as to costs.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

(JUDGE)

V. KAMESWAR RAO

(JUDGE)

APRIL 15, 2026/AM/hp