Sri Karthikeya Security Services v. Mc Lean India Limited and others

2023-24, confirming the receipt of payment from AIG Hospital, Hyderabad and KIMS, Hyderabad. Not only this, in order to provide more clarity, the petitioner claimed that it was submitting supporting documents for GST received from the clients, reflected in the GST portal, and provided screenshots from the GST portal as there was no scope to download from the GST portal, the said documents. The petitioner also claimed that it had furnished the latest Form 16A issued by the clients for the year 2024-25 as also the agreements with AIG Hospital and KIMS Hospital, starting from 2019 till 2025. 7 HCJ & RRRJ WA_964_2025

#8. The case of the petitioner was that notwithstanding clarification so submitted by the petitioner and without considering the same, the Technical Evaluation Committee rejected the technical bid of the petitioner with a status „not qualified‟

#9. Being aggrieved of the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, Writ Petition bearing Number 21232 of 2025 was filed, which was allowed by virtue of judgment and order impugned.

#10. The learned Single Judge held that, the very fact that the official respondents had communicated to the petitioner the shortcomings meant that, it gave to the petitioner an opportunity to attend to such deficiencies by treating the bids of the petitioner as substantially responsive. The learned Single Judge also held that the documents which were furnished with the explanation/objections were not submitted to introduce new documents much less could have led to materially giving any undue and unfair advantage to the writ petitioner. This, the learned Single Judge connected with the fact that it was only because the bid of the petitioner was substantially responsive, that the petitioner was informed to file objections, with a view to enable the rectification of the deficiencies by filing its objections, on or before

31.07.2025. The learned Single Judge also held that minor mistakes occurring in the bidding process, which are unintentional and had not substantially alter the material supplied by the bidder, at the inception, would not give any undue 8 HCJ & RRRJ WA_964_2025 advantage to such a bidder and should be permitted to submit the supporting documents. Reference in this regard was made to ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others1. Reliance was also placed upon the Apex Court judgment in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another v. Kolkata Development Authority and others2.

#11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, would urge that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge was unsustainable, inasmuch as the technical bid submitted by the petitioner had failed to be declared as responsive and that the opportunity given to the bidder to file objections could not be treated as an opportunity granted to the bidder to fill up the lacunae. The Tender Evaluation Committee, it was urged, having clearly noticed the shortfall in the submission of the technical bid, was not required to do anything more, and that even if the decision impugned, recorded by the Tender Evaluation Committee, dated 31.07.2025, was materially the same as the one which was notified for objections on the official website on

30.07.2025, would make no difference at all.

#12. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, appearing for respondent No.1/petitioner, would urge that the decision to disqualify the technical bid of the petitioner was unsustainable, inasmuch as the petitioner