Non-Compliance With Mandatory Bid Security Justifies Disqualification: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds WAPCOS Tender Decision
The authorities found that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was valid only up to October 18, 2025, whereas the tender conditions required validity beyond January 4, 2026.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to interfere with a tender evaluation decision of WAPCOS Limited, holding that failure to comply with mandatory bid security conditions justified technical disqualification of a contractor participating in a government infrastructure project.
In the matter, the petitioner submitted its bid along with an Earnest Money Deposit partly through a bank guarantee. However, during technical scrutiny, the authorities found that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was valid only up to October 18, 2025, whereas the tender conditions required validity beyond January 4, 2026. Consequently, the petitioner was declared technically disqualified, therefore, challenging the decision, the contractor argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP, an ‘A’ Class civil contractor, challenging its exclusion from the tender process for construction of an Eklavya Model Residential School (EMRS) at Kanker. It observed, “It is well settled that in matters relating to government tenders and award of contracts, the terms of the tender document are to be strictly adhered to and the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with the interpretation of tender conditions adopted by the authority which has issued the tender, unless such interpretation is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or wholly unreasonable”.
Placing reliance on settled principles, the Bench further observed, “…it becomes evident that the decision taken by the respondent authorities to disqualify the petitioners was based upon objective evaluation of the documents submitted by the bidders and in accordance with the tender conditions. The petitioners admittedly failed to furnish a bank guarantee that remained valid for the period required under the NIT. Such a condition relating to bid security is an essential requirement of the tender process, and non-compliance with the same necessarily results in disqualification of the bid”.
Advocate B.P. Sharma appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Santosh Tripathi appeared for the respondent.
WAPCOS Limited, a Government of India undertaking functioning as Project Management Consultant for the National Education Society for Tribal Students (NESTS), issued a Notice Inviting Tender in August 4, 2025 for construction of the residential school project valued at approximately ₹31.52 crore.
The tender followed a two-envelope system consisting of technical and financial bids. A crucial condition required bidders to furnish bid security (Earnest Money Deposit) valid for 45 days beyond the bid validity period.
It was contended that another bidder had also submitted a bank guarantee allegedly falling short of the required validity period but was nonetheless declared technically qualified. According to the petitioner, similarly situated bidders were treated differently, amounting to denial of a level playing field in the tender process.
The petitioner sought quashing of the disqualification communication and permission to participate further in the tender evaluation. Senior counsel appearing for WAPCOS argued that compliance with bid security validity was a mandatory eligibility condition.
The Bench held that the petitioner’s bank guarantee was undeniably non-compliant and therefore the technical disqualification could not be termed arbitrary or discriminatory.
“It is also pertinent to note that the tender evaluation process involves technical and commercial considerations which fall within the expertise of the tendering authority. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ordinarily refrain from interfering with such decisions unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory provisions. In the present case, no such circumstance has been demonstrated by the petitioners”, it noted.
Cause Title: M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects Llp & Anr. v. Wapcos Limited & Ors. WPC No. 5479 of 2025
Appearances:
Petitioners: B.P. Sharma and Vivek Shrivastava, Advocates.
Respondents: Santosh Tripathi, Senior Advocate (through virtual mode), Shivank Mishra, Tushar Sannu, Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Counsel, Hamida Siddiqui, Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocates.