Tender compliance requires registration certificate by bid opening; provisional approval is insufficient, and non-responsive bids may be rejected.

A tender condition requiring submission of a registration certificate by the time of bid opening was treated as an essential, strictly enforceable requirement. A provisional approval by the Registration Committee under the Insecticides Act, 1968 was held distinct from issuance of the certificate and did not satisfy the tender condition. The amendment clarifying that the certificate must accompany the bid or be produced by opening time applied to all bidders and was not shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of Article 14. In tender matters, courts generally insist on strict compliance with essential conditions and exercise restraint where the decision is bona fide and in public interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' bid was -compliant and non-responsive for want of the registration certificate at the time of tender opening, and whether the tender condition requiring such certificate was arbitrary or unenforceable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The tender conditions required the goods to be registered with the competent authority and, after amendment, required the registration certificate to accompany the bid or be produced at the latest by the time of tender opening, failing which the bid would be treated as non-responsive. The approval granted by the Registration Committee under Section 9(3B) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 was only a provisional decision subject to conditions and was not equivalent to issuance of the registration certificate itself. A decision to approve registration and the actual grant of the certificate were distinct. The appellants did not possess or submit the certificate when the bid was opened, so the essential tender condition was not met. The amendment was treated as clarificatory and applicable to all bidders, and no material was shown to establish arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In tender matters, essential conditions require strict compliance and courts ordinarily exercise restraint where the decision is bona fide and in public interest.

Conclusion: The bid was rightly treated as non-responsive and the challenge to the tender action failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tender prescribes submission of a registration certificate as an essential condition by the time of bid opening, a mere provisional approval or committee decision does not satisfy that requirement, and non-compliance justifies rejection of the bid.

---