Bombay HC – Honesty in Undertakings for Full Disclosure of Antecedents of Blacklisting or Debarment is Non-Negotiable
Tender for supply of 70 GSM Cream Wove Paper for the academic year 2026-2027. The respondent no.1 issued different corrigendums to the bid document on three different dates.
Clause 31 was introduced by the by the corrigendum dated 13.10.2025 that any mill which has been blacklisted or debarred from a tender process or supply of paper would be liable to be technically disqualified and a condition was incorporated that the bidder must furnish an undertaking that effect.
On 26.10.2025, the petitioner submitted its bid and filed an undertaking dated 14.10.2025 that it was not blacklisted.
On 5.1.2026, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected with the reason “ Black list or Debarr as per Tender terms & conditions serial No.31 (Corrigendum Amendment-2)”.
Judgment dated 28.1.2026 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.686 of 2026 of Silverton Industries Vs. Maharashtra State Bureau of Textbook Production and Curriculum Research, Pune and others with connected writ petition.
The principle that a bidder who participates in a tender with full knowledge of its terms cannot subsequently challenge those terms after an adverse outcome is well settled.
The argument that the petitioner-company is willing to supply the materials at a rate 10% lower than the awarded value is wholly irrelevant in the matter of judicial review of a tender process. Price cannot override compliance with essential eligibility conditions.
The petitioner-company being fully aware of the said order, furnished an undertaking dated 14th October 2025 without making a full disclosure, thereby rendering the bid incomplete. No explanation is offered as to why an incomplete undertaking was furnished along with the tender. This suppression is fatal and by itself attracts technical disqualification.
