Progressive Engineering Enterprises Vs Union of India

The present Writ Petition was filed, originally, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner?s technical bid submitted pursuant to Tender No.STCKRPUV-G_D-GOT116, dated 7.11.2025 issued by 3^rd respondent, without reference to the petitioner?s bank guarantee for a period of 180 days validity from 20.11.2025 to 19.5.2026, instead of 01.12.2025 to 31.05.2026.

¶24

2. Case of the writ petitioner is as follows:

¶25

(a) Respondent No.3 issued the subject Tender dated 07.11.2025 for the work viz. Supply, Installation, Design & Commissioning of New Electronic Interlocking (Hotstandby) with Distributed Architecture at Gate Junction (GJC) station, Duvvada (DVD) and Gopalapatnam (GPT) station, and Supply, Installation, Design and Commissioning of Alteration in existing Electronic Interlocking (Distributed) of M/s.Kyosan at Vadlapudi (VDPD) station in connection with 3^rd and 4^th line between

¶26

3

¶27

VDPD-GJC and DVD-GPT sections, and provision of automatic block working between VDPD-GJC & DVD-GPT section including Utility shifting of infringing LC Gate, Cables, Location boxes, other Signalling & Telecommunication gears, in Waltair Division of East Coast Railway.

¶28

(b) The participants in the tender process are required to submit a technical bid along with a financial bid. Technical bids would be opened first, and the participants, who qualify in the technical bid, will be shortlisted for the financial bid stage. Thereafter, financial bids of the shortlisted participants are opened and the bidders are sorted in ascending order, with the lowest bidders being L1, the second lowest bidder being declared as L2, and so on.

¶29

(c) Pursuant to the aforesaid Tender Notification, the petitioner submitted its technical bid on 01.12.2025 through online. The petitioner submitted bid security of Rs.33,17,000/- with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Jayanagar, Bangalore vide B.G.No.0421IGP251118430, dated 20.11.2025. As per the terms of the Tender, the

¶30

4

¶31

Bank Guarantee (B.G.) bond shall be valid for a period of 90 days beyond the bid valid period. But, instead of mentioning the effective date in the B.G. submitted by the petitioner as >from 01.12.2025?, it is mentioned as 20.11.2025, and the mistake is human error and not intentional. In view of the said mistake, the validity of B.G. would fall short of 10 days i.e. instead of 01.12.2025 to 31.5.2026, it was mentioned as 20.11.2025 to 19.5.2026. The said mistake does not substantially affect the conditions of tender document nor does it cause any hardship or prejudice to the respondents.

¶32

(d) It is stated that there is no deficiency in the amount mentioned in the B.G. and the petitioner fulfilled all other conditions required for submission of the technical bid, and the short fall of 10 days in validity period of 180 days from 01.12.2025 would not affect or cause any prejudice to the terms of the Tender. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents are likely to reject the petitioner?s technical bid on the said ground, in which event, it would result in great hardship to the petitioner. It

¶33

5

¶34

is stated that the Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines make it clear that unless a bidder is blacklisted or prematurely terminated because of poor performance, his bids cannot be rejected on any other grounds. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶35

On 30.12.2025, when the Writ Petition came up for admission, it was posted to 02.01.2026 for getting instructions. On 02.01.2026, the learned counsel for respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the technical bid was finalized on 31.12.2025 and financial bid was opened on that day i.e. 02.01.2026. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2026, seeking amendment of prayer and filed additional affidavit. In the said prayer, the petitioner sought to declare the action of respondents in rejecting the petitioner?s technical bid on 01.01.2026 pursuant to the subject Tender issued by the respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the technical bid, without reference to the petitioner?s B.G. for a period of 180 days validity from 20.11.2025 to 19.05.2026, instead of

¶36

6

¶37

01.12.2025 to 31.05.2026, and further direct the

¶38

respondents to open petitioner?s financial bid and allow the petitioner to participate in reverse auction (e-RA).

¶39

On 05.01.2026, this Court, while ordering the

¶40

said amendment petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2026, directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation along with an application mentioning the fresh dates of B.G. to respondents 2 and 3 within the time stipulated therein, and thereupon, directed respondents 2 and 3 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶41

Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2026, amendment petition. It is stated in the said petition that pursuant to the aforesaid direction dated 05.01.2026 of this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.01.2026 by enclosing B.G., however, the respondents issued proceedings dated 16.1.2026, rejecting the representation and upholding the earlier decision regarding rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. Hence, the

¶42

7

¶43

petitioner sought to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner?s technical bid submitted pursuant to the subject Tender dated 01.01.2026 and subsequent rejection order dated 16.1.2026 issued by 3^rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the rejection order dated 01.01.2026 and the subsequent rejection order dated 16.1.2026 issued by 3^rd respondent and direct the respondents to consider petitioner?s technical bid, open petitioner?s financial bid and allow the petitioner to participate in reverse auction (e-RA). The said petition is allowed today.

¶44

6. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit denying

¶45

the material averments in the writ affidavit and contending inter alia as follows.

¶46

(a) The petitioner deliberately suppressed many fundamental and imperative material facts which are relevant and necessary for deciding the Writ Petition; that the subject Tender was issued strictly in conformity with the extant railway procurement Rules and the established tendering procedures applicable to the railways, and the

¶47

8

¶48

terms and conditions governing the Tender are explicit and applicable to all prospective bidders, including the petitioner; that the Tender document consists of 10 schedules forming an integral part thereof, and every participating bidder is required to scrupulously comply with the same without any deviation or relaxation.

¶49

(b) It is further stated that the closing date and time for submission of bids as per the Tender Notification is 15.30 hrs on 01.12.2025; that the tender evaluation process was duly completed on 31.12.2025 and the outcome was communicated to all participating tenderers; that the tender process was conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed schedule without any alteration or deviation.

¶50

(c) It is further stated that under the express provisions of the Tender Form (Second Sheet), Annexure-I Clause 6 (bid security), the bid security furnished in the form of a Bank Guarantee must be valid for a period of 90 days beyond the tender validity period, and since the tender validity period was stipulated to subsist up to 01.03.2026,

¶51

9

¶52

the corresponding bid security was mandatorily required to remain valid up to 30.05.2026, which is an essential eligibility condition forming part of the tender framework;

¶53

that the petitioner furnished a B.G. valid only up to 19.05.2026, which falls short of the mandatory validity period prescribed under the Tender conditions, and the same is non-compliance of an essential tender requirement, which renders the bid inherently defective and nonresponsive. It is further stated that validity period of bid security is a substantive, mandatory and non-negotiable condition of eligibility, and non-fulfilment thereof ipso facto renders the bid non-responsive and makes it liable for rejection at threshold; that the reason assigned therefor, by the petitioner as >human error? is not tenable.

¶54

(d) It is further stated that the Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines are intended to ensure transparency and probity in public procurement, but do not over-ride, dilute or supplant the express conditions of a particular tender; that the said Guidelines do not mandate acceptance of a non-responsive bid or authorize relaxation

¶55

10

¶56

of an essential eligibility condition; that the rejection of petitioner?s technical bid is not a punitive in nature, but it is an inevitable consequence of non-compliance with a mandatory tender stipulation.

¶57

(e) It is further stated that any request for extension or substitution of B.G. after opening of the technical bid amounts to post-bid modification, which is expressly prohibited under the tender conditions and the settled principles of public procurement; that eligibility and responsiveness of a bid must be assessed strictly with reference to the documents as they existed on the date of bid opening and material defects cannot be cured retrospectively. It is further stated that Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction, ordinarily refrain from interfering in contractual and tender matters, unless the decision making is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or in violation of any statutory provision.

¶58

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that

¶59

the petitioner made a representation dated 07.01.2026 pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 05.01.2026 and

¶60

11

¶61

the same was duly considered by 3^rd respondent and a reasoned speaking order dated 16.01.2026 was passed after due examination of the governing tender conditions, the nature and materiality of the defect and the established norms of tender evaluation, rejecting the representation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in pursuance to the subject Tender Notification dated 7.11.2025, the petitioner submitted its technical bid, along with B.G. issued by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Jayanagar, Bangalore; that as per the terms of the Tender, the B.G. shall be valid for a period of 90 days beyond the bid valid period i.e. 01.12.2025 to 31.05.2026, but by mistake, B.G. which is effective from 20.11.2025 to 19.5.2026 was submitted by the petitioner; that it is a human error; that there is no deficiency in the amount of B.G. to be submitted by the petitioner, but the validity of the B.G. falls short of 10 days; that the same does not substantially affect the conditions of tender document and no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the

¶63

12

¶64

respondents; that the petitioner fulfilled all other conditions required for submission of the bid.

¶65

He submits that inspite of the same, the respondents rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on 01.01.2026, on the ground of non-compliance of the commercial compliance part of the eligibility criteria; that the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner?s technical bid on the said ground, is untenable; that had the respondents considered the petitioner?s technical bid, the petitioner would have become eligible to participate in reverse tender auction/bid (e-RA) as per Clause 9 of the Special Conditions of Contract;

¶66

He further submits that pursuant to the Order dated 05.01.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted representation dated 07.01.2026 by enclosing the B.G., but the same was erroneously rejected by 3^rd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.01.2026 on the ground that the petitioner?s bid security/B.G. was valid only up to 19.05.2026 and falls short of the mandatory validity period prescribed under the tender conditions; that in the B.G., it

¶67

13

¶68

is specifically mentioned that the beneficiary?s right as well as the Bank?s liability under the said Guarantee shall stand extinguished unless a written claim or demand is made under this Guarantee on or before completion of one year from expiry date i.e. 19.05.2027, and hence, the B.G. remains and valid till 19.05.2027 i.e. beyond 180 days, as required by the respondents. He submits that in view of the same, rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground is untenable and hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition.

¶69

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an Order of the High Court for the State of Telangana in M/s. Hytronics Enterprises v. Union of India¹ case.

¶70

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit, contended that the subject Tender document consists of 10 schedules which form an integral part thereof, and all the bidders are required to scrupulously

¶71

1 Order dated 10.10.2023 in W.P.No.25868 of 2023

¶72

14

¶73

comply with the same without any deviation, and tender process was conducted strictly adhering to the prescribed schedule and in conformity with the terms and conditions of the Tender, without any deviation. He submits that as per the tender conditions, the bid security in the form of a B.G. has to remain valid for a period of 90 days beyond the tender validity, and since the tender validity was up to 01.03.2026, the bid security (B.G.) is to be valid up to 30.05.2026, but the bid security (B.G.) submitted by the petitioner was valid only up to 19.05.2026, which falls short of the mandatory validity period prescribed under the Tender conditions. He submits that if the extended B.G. submitted by the petitioner along with the representation dated 07.01.2026 is accepted, it would amount to post-bid modification and would result in unequal treatment of bidders, which is not permissible, and considering these aspects, the respondents rightly rejected the petitioner?s technical bid, and there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the

¶74

15

¶75

action taken by the respondents. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶76

In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision in Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best) & others² .

¶77

Now, the point that arises for consideration of this Court in this Writ Petition is whether there are any grounds to interfere with the decision of 3^rd respondent, rejecting the tender document submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the Tender No.STCKRPU-V-G_D-GOT116, dated 7.11.2025 issued by 3^rd respondent ?

¶78

The factual matrix is not in dispute. The

¶79

petitioner participated in the Tender process pursuant to a Tender No.STCKRPU-V-G_D-GOT116, dated 7.11.2025 issued by 3^rd respondent and submitted its technical bid on 01.12.2025. It is not in dispute that along with the bid, the petitioner submitted bid security of Rs.33,17,000/- vide B.G.No.0421IGP251118430, dated 20.11.2025 issued by

¶80

2 (2023) 19 SCC 1

¶81

16

¶82

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Jayanagar, Bangalore, and the validity period mentioned in the said B.G. is from 20.11.2025 to 19.05.2026.

¶83

It is also not in dispute that the tender conditions inter alia {Clause 6 of Annexure-I of the Tender Form (Second Sheet)} stipulate that the bid security in the form of a B.G. has to remain valid for a period of 90 days beyond the tender validity. In the case on hand, the tender validity was up to 01.03.2026 and so, the bid security (B.G.) is to be valid up to 30.05.2026. Admittedly, the bid security submitted by the petitioner by way of the subject B.G. was valid only till 19.05.2026. It is not in conformity with the conditions stipulated under the subject Tender and falls short of the mandatory validity period prescribed under the Tender conditions.

¶84

In fact, the petitioner also admits that the B.G. submitted by it falls short of 10 days of the validity period prescribed in the Tender. According to the petitioner, it is only a human error and not intentional, and that the B.G.

¶85

17

¶86

was valid for a period of 180 days but the validity period is mistakenly mentioned as 20.11.2025 to 19.5.2026, instead of 01.12.2025 to 31.5.2026. It is the contention of the

¶87

petitioner that the petitioner fulfilled all other conditions required for submission of the technical bid, and the said mistake does not substantially affect the conditions of tender document and it does not cause any hardship or prejudice to the respondents, and that there is no deficiency in the amount mentioned in the B.G. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the said mistake renders the bid inherently defective and nonresponsive.

¶88

There cannot be any dispute that the Tender conditions are integral part of the Tender, and all the bidders are required to scrupulously comply with the same without any deviation. It is also not in dispute that the respondents too are required to adhere to the Tender conditions and schedule, while processing the Tenders, and there cannot be any discrimination or deviation. As stated supra, according to the Tender conditions, the bid security

¶89

18

¶90

to be submitted by the participants in the Tender process must be in the form of a Bank Guarantee and the same has to remain valid for a period of 90 days beyond the tender validity. As the tender validity period was up to 01.03.2026, the bid security (B.G.) has to be valid invariably up to 30.05.2026, but the bid security submitted by the petitioner in the form of the subject B.G. falls short of 10 days. This amounts to a patent non-compliance of one of the essential requirements under the Tender document, which renders the bid inherently defective and non-responsive. Any extension of time or any permission for substitution of the B.G. after opening of the technical would, admittedly, amount to post-bid modification, which is not permitted under the Tender conditions.

¶91

The facts in the said present case and the facts in the decision in M/s. Hytronics Enterprises v. Union of India case (1 supra ), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable. In the said case, though the petitioner therein furnished the security commencing from 12.07.2023 to 30.04.2025, a mistake crept in, in filling the

¶92

19

¶93

tender form and the date was filled as ?30.04.2024?, instead of >30.04.2025?. Considering the said fact and in view of the fact that the respondents therein stated in the counter affidavit that the technical bid was not yet finalized as on the said date of the decision, the said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein to consider the representation of the petitioner therein and pass a reasoned order. In the case on hand, even according to the petitioner, the bid security submitted by it, in the form of B.G. falls short of the mandatory validity period prescribed under the Tender conditions, and the same would amount to non-compliance of an essential tender requirement. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision in M/s. Hytronics Enterprises v. Union of India case (1 supra ), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner.

¶94

Moreover, pursuant to the order dated

¶95

05.01.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 07.01.2026, and upon considering the

¶96

20

¶97

same, the respondents passed a detailed Order dated 16.01.2026, rejecting the said representation, upholding its earlier decision to reject technical bid.

¶98

In Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric

¶99

Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best) & others (2 supra), the Hon?ble Apex Could held thus: (paragraph 50)

¶100

“50. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give <fair play in the joints= to the government and public sector

¶101

21

¶102

undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India [ Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India , (2020) 16 SCC 489] ).=

¶103

It is settled proposition of law that this Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. It is also settled that a lot of restraint has to be exercised by this Court while exercising its powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. Having failed to submit the Tender Security as stipulated in the Tender document, the petitioner cannot now seek redressal from this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of

¶104

the Constitution of India. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, if the extended B.G. submitted by the petitioner along with the representation dated 07.01.2026 is accepted, it would amount to post-bid modification and would result in unequal treatment of bidders. Further more, when once the technical bid was finalized on 31.12.2025 and financial bid was opened on

¶105

22

¶106

that day i.e. 02.01.2026, the petitioner cannot be permitted to correct the mistake by submitting the extended bid security by way of B.G. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the respondents is strictly in accordance with the Tender conditions. The Tender conditions are not under challenge. Therefore, there are no grounds calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶107

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No

¶108

costs.

¶109

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶110

(JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY)

¶111

DRK 3.3.2026

¶112

23

¶113

THE HON?BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶114

WRIT PETITION No.36493 of 2025

3.3.2026

DRK

24

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶119

¶120

WRIT PETITION NO: 36493/2025

¶121

Between: Progressive Engineering Enterprises ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) * * * * * DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 3.3.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶122

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶123