Mandatory tender disclosure requirements justify rejection where prescribed financial particulars are not fully furnished.

Tender compliance under Rule 206 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 required full particulars in the prescribed form, including financial capacity details such as cash, bank balance, security and assets, so the authorities could assess eligibility before settlement. A mere assurance of financial help from family members, unsupported by particulars or documents, did not satisfy the prescribed requirement. On that basis, a tender lacking the required disclosures was liable to rejection at the threshold, and the rule was treated as mandatory rather than directory.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tender submitted by the respondent was liable to be rejected for failure to furnish the particulars required in the prescribed form under Rule 206 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, and whether Rule 206 was mandatory.

Analysis: Rule 206, as amended, required tenders to be submitted in the prescribed form and made it explicit that tenders not containing all particulars were liable to be rejected. The tender form and the tender notice required full disclosure of financial capacity, including cash in hand, bank balance, security and assets, so that the authorities could verify the tenderer's capability before settlement. A bare assurance of financial assistance from family members, without supporting particulars or documents, did not satisfy the prescribed requirement. On that footing, the tender ought to have been rejected at the threshold. The view that Rule 206 was directory was not accepted.

Conclusion: The tender was rightly liable to rejection for non-compliance with Rule 206, which was mandatory.

---