Judicial Restraint and Mandatory Tender Conditions: Bombay High Court Upholds Disqualification for Omitted Bank Statements

sketch of the Bombay High Court
Case
PRAGATI CONSTRUCTION LATUR AND R B KRISHNANI PUNE JOINT VENTURE THR ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATIORY KAPIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 05-10-2026)
Law
Administrative Law, Constitution of India.

Highlights of the Judgment:

  • Examination of the scope of judicial review and restraint in public tender matters under Article 226.
  • Interpretation of mandatory versus directory pre-conditions in e-tender documents.
  • Legal consequences of failing to upload mandatory supporting documents like bank statements for Earnest Money Deposit.
  • Application of the doctrine that the tender-issuing authority is the best interpreter of its terms.
  • Distinction between essential conditions and ancillary requirements based on evolving Supreme Court precedents.
  • Rejection of post-bid rectification or gap-filling to cure fundamental technical disqualifications.