SC: Tender Bid Rejection Over ‘Haisiyat Praman Patra’ Quashed; NIT Terms Must Be Clear and Explicit

The case arose from a tender released by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, for giving a banquet hall and terrace lawn on lease for ten years. The notice inviting tender (NIT) required bidders to submit a “haisiyat praman patra” (solvency certificate) of at least Rs. 10 crores with the technical bid. Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd., one of the bidders, submitted a valuation certificate issued by a private architect empanelled with the Income Tax Department, valuing its asset at approximately Rs. 99 crores. The Mandi Parishad rejected its technical bid, holding that the certificate was invalid since it was not issued by a District Magistrate, and awarded the contract to another bidder.

HC’s Ruling: The High Court upheld the disqualification, prompting Kimberley Club to approach the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the NIT did not expressly require the solvency certificate to be issued by a District Magistrate, and that the rejection on that basis was arbitrary. The Mandi Parishad relied on a 2018 government notification prescribing such a procedure but conceded that the notification was not expressly referred to in the tender.

Main Issue: Whether a bidder’s valuation certificate issued by a registered private valuer could be rejected for not being issued by a District Magistrate when the tender notice did not specifically require it.

SC’s Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the Mandi Parishad’s rejection of the appellant’s technical bid was contrary to the terms of the NIT. The Court observed that Clause 18 did not stipulate that the “haisiyat praman patra” must be issued by a District Magistrate, and such an unstated condition could not be implied or retroactively enforced. Since the Mandi Parishad is a statutory body and not a government department, the 2018 government notification did not automatically apply. The Court reaffirmed that tender conditions must be clear and unambiguous, citing Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) and Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v. MPPGCL (2025).

Thus, the highest court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter to the Mandi Parishad for reconsideration of the appellant’s technical bid. The Parishad was directed to verify whether the asset’s net worth satisfied the Rs. 10 crore requirement. If yes, it must negotiate between the appellant and the successful bidder to determine whether to reassign or continue the contract based on matching or higher offers.

To Read full judgment, Download PDF Given Below