Gauhati HC: an engineer's certification cannot cure an admittedly wrong bid-capacity calculation in a tender

A contractor whose technical bid was rejected in a municipal water-supply tender challenged the qualification of two rival bidders before the Gauhati High Court, pointing out that their 'available bid capacity' — an eligibility threshold computed under the tender's Clause 4.7 formula — had been calculated using the wrong value for the number of years of work, inflating their capacity well above what the stipulated 90-day completion period actually allowed. The Municipal Board defended the qualification on the ground that the figures carried an Executive Engineer's certification, which the evaluation committee had simply relied upon without independent scrutiny.

The Court restated the limited scope of judicial review over public tenders settled in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 — a writ court does not sit in appeal over technical evaluation and interferes only for illegality, mala fides or irrationality — but, invoking Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489, and the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in M/s Mickey Traders v. M/s LRY Labor Contractor, held that an authority's interpretation of its own tender document cannot be stretched to validate a bidder who, on the correct formula, would fail the prescribed eligibility criterion; certification authenticates a figure, but cannot cure an admittedly wrong calculation. Since the error went to the root of eligibility, the Court set aside the technical evaluation and directed a fresh evaluation of all bidders strictly under the original tender conditions.