<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (11) TMI 1985 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464207</link>
    <description>In public procurement, a technical bid is not non-responsive merely because it contains non-material deviations, omissions, or reservations that can be clarified or waived without altering the substance of the offer or giving an unfair competitive advantage. Applying the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 and Rules, 2013, the High Court treated objections relating to experience certificates, completion certificates, processing fee nomenclature, and a board resolution as non-material. Clarified documents were accepted as satisfying the eligibility criteria, the fee-payment error was regarded as bona fide, and no board resolution was required where a power of attorney had been furnished. The challenge to the successful bidder&#039;s technical qualification therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 21:29:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1985 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464207</link>
      <description>In public procurement, a technical bid is not non-responsive merely because it contains non-material deviations, omissions, or reservations that can be clarified or waived without altering the substance of the offer or giving an unfair competitive advantage. Applying the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 and Rules, 2013, the High Court treated objections relating to experience certificates, completion certificates, processing fee nomenclature, and a board resolution as non-material. Clarified documents were accepted as satisfying the eligibility criteria, the fee-payment error was regarded as bona fide, and no board resolution was required where a power of attorney had been furnished. The challenge to the successful bidder&#039;s technical qualification therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>