Tender disqualification requires objective material; weak cartel suspicion, incomplete certificate verification and partnership issues warranted fresh reconsideration.

Tender disqualification must rest on objective material sufficient to justify bona fide administrative satisfaction; a bare circumstance such as a shared IP address was held too slender to sustain cartel-based rejection, and later-added grounds not forming part of the original decision process could not cure the defect. Rejection for alleged submission of a false experience certificate also failed where verification was incomplete and the record did not support a final adverse finding without fuller scrutiny of the competing documents. The challenge to award of work to the fourth bidder likewise required fresh examination because the issue of dissolution and reconstitution of the partnership firm had not been properly considered on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the bids on the ground of cartel formation was sustainable on the basis of the circumstances recorded by the authority. (ii) Whether the rejection of the bid on the ground of submission of a false experience certificate was justified. (iii) Whether the award of work order to the fourth bidder could stand in view of the challenge based on dissolution and reconstitution of the partnership firm.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the bids on the ground of cartel formation was sustainable on the basis of the circumstances recorded by the authority.

Analysis: Cartel formation may be inferred from surrounding circumstances and need not always rest on direct evidence or a written agreement. However, the decision must be founded on a fair subjective satisfaction based on objective material, and a mere slender or isolated circumstance cannot by itself justify disqualification, especially where the authority later seeks to rely on additional grounds not forming part of the original decision-making process. The Court distinguished between sufficient material for a prima facie suspicion and a sustainable decision affecting tender eligibility, and held that in one case the sole circumstance of use of the same IP address was too weak, while in the other cases the additional grounds relied upon were not part of the original process.

Conclusion: The disqualification on the ground of cartel formation could not be sustained on the recorded reasons, and the matter required reconsideration after affording opportunity to the concerned bidders.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the bid on the ground of submission of a false experience certificate was justified.

Analysis: The authority relied on communications questioning the authenticity of the experience certificate, but the record showed that the inquiry was not conclusively completed and that further technical aspects were still under consideration. The Court held that the material before the authority was insufficient to support a final rejection without deeper verification of the competing documents and the actual experience claimed by the bidder. Since the petitioner's supporting documents were not fully before the Court and the verification process itself was incomplete, the proper course was reconsideration by the authority.

Conclusion: The rejection on this ground was set aside for fresh consideration.

Issue (iii): Whether the award of work order to the fourth bidder could stand in view of the challenge based on dissolution and reconstitution of the partnership firm.

Analysis: A firm is dissolved on the death of a partner unless there is a contract to the contrary, and such a contrary arrangement may be express or implied from conduct. The Court noted, however, that the question whether the firm had in fact continued by consent after the partner's death was not part of the original decision-making process, and the relevant business records were not placed before the Court. In those circumstances, the challenge to the award could not be finally decided against the fourth bidder on the materials then available, but the authority was required to examine the issue afresh.

Conclusion: The work order could not be sustained on the existing decision-making record and was set aside with liberty to reconsider the matter.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in part, the impugned disqualifications and work order were set aside, and the tendering authority was directed to undertake fresh consideration on the disputed issues in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In tender matters, disqualification must rest on objective material sufficient to support a bona fide and reasoned administrative satisfaction, and where the recorded basis is inadequate or the relevant issue was not part of the original decision-making process, the authority must reconsider the matter rather than sustain the rejection.

---