Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Citing Inconsistent Disclosures and Lack of Bona Fide in Key Personnel Experience Claims
In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Ram Pukar Singh, who contested his disqualification from a tender process initiated by the State of Bihar for the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Buildings. The court, comprising Justices Sudhir Singh and Shailendra Singh, delivered the verdict on May 5, 2026, emphasizing the necessity of accurate and consistent disclosures in tender bids.
The case revolved around the petitioner's technical bid disqualification for Tender ID No. 81501, which was part of a larger tender process for constructing government buildings in various panchayats of Gaya district. The petitioner's bid was initially accepted but later rejected after complaints regarding the accuracy of the experience claimed for key personnel, particularly concerning the Site Supervisor, Sri Chandra Bhan Singh.
The court scrutinized the discrepancies in the affidavits submitted by the petitioner in two different tender processes. The inconsistencies in the claimed experience of Chandra Bhan Singh, which varied significantly between affidavits, raised doubts about the reliability of the disclosures. The court noted that the experience claimed implied an implausible start age for professional work, which undermined the credibility of the bid.
The judgment extensively referred to statutory provisions and previous Supreme Court rulings, highlighting the strict adherence required to tender conditions and the importance of approaching the court with clean hands. Citing rulings from cases like "K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors." and "Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.," the court underscored the limited scope for judicial interference in tender matters unless clear arbitrariness or illegality is evident.
The bench concluded that the petitioner failed to make a bona fide disclosure of material particulars and that the inconsistencies amounted to a misrepresentation, thus justifying the disqualification. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the principle that tender evaluations must strictly adhere to the original submissions made by bidders without entertaining post-submission clarifications.
In its concluding remarks, the court ordered the return of the petitioner's Earnest Money Deposit and Bank Guarantee in accordance with law, signaling the end of the legal battle over the disputed tender process.
Bottom line:-
Tender process evaluation must strictly adhere to the information provided by the bidder at the time of submission; inconsistencies or misrepresentation of material particulars by the bidder can justify disqualification under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Clause 4 and Clause 4.5B(b) of the Standard Bidding Document, Departmental Letter No. 81/07/3284 dated 05.05.2009
Ram Pukar Singh v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2903645
