2025 (10) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent No.1 : Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Ramesh Kumar Saboo, Advocate and Shri Pranit Nagrath - Advocate For the Respondents No.2 to 6 : Shri Jubin Prasad and Shri Kushal Dubey - Advocates ORDER PER: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE Petitioner impugns notification/notice dated 18.08.2025 whereby it was notified that the financial bid of the petitioner shall not be opened. Petitioner also inter alia impugns letter dated 25.08.2025 whereby petitioner was communicated that petitioner has been technically disqualified in the tender. Petitioner further seeks a declaration that petitioner be declared technically qualified and the financial bid of the petitioner be opened. 2. Responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the paper has been tested on a representation that the same is S.S. Maplitho paper and not simply Maplitho paper and believing the said representation, the test report has been furnished. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the bid of the petitioner was non-responsive and as such the rejection of the bid of the petitioner was valid. He submits that there is no challenge to the tender specification in the present writ petition. 7. We note that petitioner has in the present petition only challenged the communication whereby bid of the petitioner has been declared to be technically disqualified. 8. We note that the NIT inter alia required the bi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, we may note that the bidder had to file a declaration that the paper being offered was S.S. (surface sizing Maplitho Printing Paper) and a notarized declaration to the said effect was to be given while giving the declaration. Petitioner omitted the word 'S.S. (surface sized)' and give a declaration that the paper being provided or being offered was Watermark Maplitho Printing Paper. Even in the sample which was submitted, the words 'SS (surface sized)' was omitted. Clearly, the tender specification required provision of S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Paper, admittedly which is not the paper offered by the petitioner. On these grounds alone, the bid of the petitioner was non-responsive and the action of the respondents in d....