Uniform application of mandatory tender conditions is essential; selective relaxation or rejection renders public procurement arbitrary.

In public tender evaluation, mandatory bid conditions must be applied uniformly and cannot be enforced selectively. A technical bid could not be rejected for alleged lack of authority where the power of attorney had been executed in favour of the authorised signatory and the tender conditions did not require earlier notarisation. By contrast, acceptance of another bidder's technical bid despite non-submission of mandatory qualification documents, followed by post-opening cure of the defect, was arbitrary and discriminatory. Unequal treatment of bidders in applying mandatory conditions offends fairness, transparency, and Article 14, and vitiates the tender process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the appellant's technical bid for alleged non-compliance with the power of attorney requirement under the tender conditions was justified; (ii) Whether the acceptance of the successful bidder's technical bid despite non-submission of mandatory qualification documents, and the consequent award of the tender, was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the appellant's technical bid for alleged non-compliance with the power of attorney requirement under the tender conditions was justified.

Analysis: The bid documents were uploaded before the last date, the power of attorney had been executed in favour of the authorised signatory, and notarisation took place before the tender process closed. The tender conditions did not require notarisation of the power of attorney before signing the bid documents. Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 recognises execution by an authorised donee as legally effective, and there was no contractual basis to treat the appellant as lacking authority on the date of submission.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appellant's technical bid was unjustified and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the acceptance of the successful bidder's technical bid despite non-submission of mandatory qualification documents, and the consequent award of the tender, was valid.

Analysis: Clause 10 of the NIT treated the specified qualification documents as mandatory. The successful bidder had not uploaded the required audited annual reports and was permitted to cure the shortfall only after technical bids had been opened. A tendering authority cannot apply mandatory conditions selectively. Such inconsistent treatment of bidders was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the requirement of fairness and transparency in public contracts, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The acceptance of the successful bidder's technical bid and the award of the tender were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The tender evaluation process was vitiated by unequal treatment and arbitrary application of mandatory bid conditions, warranting interference and a fresh tender process in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In public tender matters, mandatory qualification conditions must be applied uniformly to all bidders, and any arbitrary or selective relaxation or enforcement that results in unequal treatment is liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14.

---