Bid Rejected for Missing UDIN on Audit Documents Under ICAI Guidelines and Tender Rules Section

The HC upheld the rejection of the petitioner's bid for failing to provide the mandatory UDIN on audit-related documents, affirming that the requirement is implicitly embedded in the tender conditions. The court held that the mandate to include UDIN arises from ICAI guidelines and statutory obligations, making non-compliance a valid ground for disqualification. It rejected the petitioner's claim of unawareness, noting the petitioner's experience as a civil contractor. The court found no violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, or 300A, nor any arbitrariness or discrimination in the bid rejection. The writ petition challenging the disqualification was dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the requirement of providing Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) by full-time Chartered Accountants for documents relating to audit reports and financial statements is manifestly implicit in the tender conditions.Whether the disqualification of a bidder's tender on the ground of non-furnishing of UDIN, when such requirement is not expressly mentioned in the tender notice, is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of constitutional provisions including Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India.Whether tender conditions must explicitly state all mandatory requirements or whether certain statutory or regulatory mandates can be considered implicitly incorporated.The extent of judicial interference permissible in government contracts and tender processes, particularly regarding technical bid evaluation.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the requirement of mentioning UDIN in audited financial statements and certificates issued by Chartered Accountants is "manifestly implicit in the Tender Conditions" and "indispensable," notwithstanding the absence of an express clause in the tender document.The rejection of the petitioner's bid on the ground of non-furnishing of UDIN was neither "discriminatory nor illegal or arbitrary" as UDIN generation is mandated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and supported by statutory guidelines and notifications.The Court emphasized that tender conditions need not expressly mention requirements that are mandated by statutory or regulatory authorities, and such mandates are deemed incorporated by necessary implication.Judicial interference in government contracts is limited; the Court recognized the necessity for "reasonable amount of flexibility and 'play in the joints'" in commercial contracts and tender evaluations, and found no grounds for interference in the present case.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the legal framework established by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) through its statutory authority under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which mandates generation of UDIN for all certificates, audit reports, and financial statements signed by full-time practicing Chartered Accountants since 2019.The Court relied on the ICAI's Notification dated 02.08.2019 and the detailed briefing on the UDIN system, which aims to "curb malpractices" such as false certification and forgery, and to provide a "universal verification mechanism" enhancing authenticity and trust in financial documents.Precedent decisions from Division Benches of the High Courts of Uttarakhand and Allahabad were followed, which upheld the implicit incorporation of UDIN requirements in tender conditions and justified rejection of bids lacking UDIN-compliant documents.The Court noted that the tender conditions required submission of audited financial statements certified by Chartered Accountants, and since UDIN is mandatory for such certificates under the ICAI regime, the requirement is "manifestly implicit" and need not be expressly stated.The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that absence of explicit mention of UDIN in the tender document rendered the disqualification arbitrary, emphasizing that statutory mandates applicable to tender submissions are binding on bidders.There was no dissent or doctrinal shift; the judgment aligns with established principles limiting judicial interference in government procurement and respecting regulatory frameworks governing professional certifications.

---