SCNotice of Tender Must be Clear and Unambiguous –

Respondent No.1 invited tender to let out banquet hall / terrace lawn for 10 years.  Clause 18 of the NIT provided that the bidder must submit a valuation certificate of minimum of 10 crores with the technical bid.

The technical bid of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the said certificate was issued by an architect and not by a District Magistrate.

HELD that neither Clause 18 nor any other condition specifies that the certificate by a bidder must be issued only by a District Magistrate in terms of the government notification.  It is trite that the terms of an NIT must be clear and unambiguous.  If the respondent no.1 intended that the said certificate must be issued by District Magistrate alone, it ought to have specified so in the NIT conditions. That apart, the appellant’s certificate has been issued by an experienced value registered with the Income Tax Department who is otherwise competent to issue such certificate.

We are loathe to loathe to permit the respondent no.1 to justify rejection of the technical bid on such additional ground belatedly taken in the counter affidavit.  There is no cavil that an order of rejection must be sustained on grounds stated therein and additional grounds stated in the counter affidavit cannot be subsequently pressed into service to justify such rejection.