The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition filed by NHAI, questioned the rejection of a bidder in a highway tender over the date reflected in a net worth certificate, expressing reservations about disqualifying a bidder on what appeared to be a technical ground despite evidence of financial capability.

The matter concerns the rejection of a bidder as technically non-responsive on the ground that the associate entity’s net worth certificate did not expressly certify its value as on March 31, 2025, the cut-off date prescribed under the tender conditions. The appellant argued that the requirement was intended to assess the bidder’s financial stability and capacity to execute the project as on the cut-off date, which is a mandatory requirement under the tender documents. He submitted that while the chartered accountant’s certificate was issued subsequent to disqualification, it was issued at the request of the bidder and not on valuation reports.

During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned the rationale behind rejecting the bid, observing that if the object of the tender condition was to ensure that the bidder possessed adequate financial strength and was not a “fly-by-night” operator, it did not logically follow that the bid should be rejected merely because the certificate was issued later. The Court remarked that such an approach “doesn’t appeal to logic” when the bidder’s financial credentials were otherwise demonstrated.

The Bench also examined the Delhi High Court’s reasoning, which had held that the tender conditions did not require a separate valuation certificate in any prescribed format and that the bidder had furnished a consolidated statutory auditor’s certificate along with valuation reports of the associate’s immovable properties. The High Court had directed the authority to recompute the bidder’s assessed net worth after taking those properties into account.

Appearing for the authority, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by Nishant Awana, AoR submitted that the tendering authority had decided to cancel the tender and proceed with a fresh tender provisions. The Bench accordingly after recording the statement permitted the authority to take action, if any, in accordance with tender documents.

The matter was accordingly disposed of.