Substantial compliance with tender conditions limits judicial review where eligibility is reasonably verified and the award is not arbitrary.

A bidder's submission of the available income tax return, supported by explanation and the due dates under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, was treated as sufficient compliance with the tender condition aimed at assessing financial capacity, and the objection was unsustainable. A GST no-dues certificate issued by the jurisdictional officer was also accepted despite an attached rider, while the rival bidder relied only on a portal screenshot. The note states that where the tendering authority has reasonably satisfied itself on eligibility and the award is neither arbitrary nor illegal, judicial review should not disturb the administrative decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bidder complied with the tender condition requiring submission of the income tax return of the previous financial year; (ii) Whether the bidder complied with the tender condition requiring a GST no-dues certificate and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the tender award.

Issue (i): Whether the bidder complied with the tender condition requiring submission of the income tax return of the previous financial year.

Analysis: The bid condition was intended to assess the financial capacity of the bidder. The bidder had submitted the available return along with an explanation supported by the chartered accountant and the applicable due dates under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the material placed, the return furnished was treated as sufficient compliance with the tender requirement and was not a disqualifying defect.

Conclusion: The condition was complied with and the objection against the bidder on this score was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the bidder complied with the tender condition requiring a GST no-dues certificate and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the tender award.

Analysis: The bidder produced a certificate from the GST jurisdictional officer showing no outstanding dues, and the attached rider did not destroy its efficacy. The rival bidder had not produced an equivalent certificate and had relied only on a portal screenshot. The tender authorities had duly examined the documents, found compliance, and awarded the lease on the basis of the highest bid. In a matter governed by tender conditions and judicial review, interference was unwarranted when the administrative decision was neither arbitrary nor illegal.

Conclusion: The GST condition was complied with by the bidder, and the High Court should not have interfered with the award of tender.

Final Conclusion: The tender authorities' decision was upheld, and the High Court's interference was held to be erroneous.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a bidder has made substantial compliance with the tender requirements and the tendering authority has reasonably satisfied itself on eligibility, judicial review will not displace the administrative decision absent arbitrariness or illegality.

---