Flexible Proof of Supply Quantity in Tender Qualification | Karnataka HC Relaxes MT Requirement Under Writ Jurisdiction : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has intervened in a tender dispute involving the procurement of nutrition food for tribal families, ruling that bidders need not be strictly bound to prove a minimum supply quantity of 16,732 metric tons solely through satisfaction certificates. The Court directed that work orders and other documentary evidence be considered for technical evaluation, providing relief to the petitioner federation.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Karnataka State Co-operative Consumers Federation Ltd., challenged the qualification criteria prescribed in a tender notification issued by the Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department for the procurement of nutrition food for tribal families in eight districts of Karnataka for the financial year 2026-27. The impugned clause, Sl.No.8 of the tender document, required bidders to demonstrate a cumulative supply of at least 16,732 metric tons (MT) during the specified period, either through a single contract or multiple contracts.

Key Facts

• Tender Notification: Issued in June 2026 (IFT No. NIL, dated 06/2026) for the procurement of nutrition food.
• Qualification Criteria: Clause 8 mandated bidders to supply a minimum of 16,732 MT, supported by satisfaction certificates issued by clients for the last three financial years (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-24). If experience for FY 2025-26 was demonstrated, the last three years considered would be 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26.
• Conversion Requirement: Different food item units (e.g., kg to MT, litre to MT) were to be converted as per Government Order No. FD 908 Exp-1212019, dated 21.07.2020.
• Pre-Bid Clarification: A clarification issued on 24.06.2026 (Tender No. DTWO/2026-27/IND0114) reiterated that bidders must submit copies of work orders along with satisfaction certificates to prove compliance with the 16,732 MT requirement.

Procedural History

• June 2026: Tender notification issued by the Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department.
• 24.06.2026: Pre-bid clarification issued, mandating submission of work orders alongside satisfaction certificates.
• Filing of Writ Petition: The petitioner filed WP No. 19752 of 2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of the qualification criteria and the pre-bid clarification.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

1. Quashing of the impugned tender notification (Annexure-A) and pre-bid clarification (Annexure-A1) to the extent they mandated proof of a minimum supply of 16,732 MT solely through satisfaction certificates.
2. A direction to the respondents to proceed with the tender process without enforcing the rigid qualification criteria, allowing the petitioner’s technical and financial bids to be considered.
3. Any other relief deemed fit by the Court.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether the tender qualification criteria could be interpreted flexibly to allow bidders to submit alternative documentary evidence, such as work orders, to prove compliance with the minimum supply quantity requirement, instead of being strictly confined to satisfaction certificates.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that:

• The tender documents required bidders to prove a minimum supply of 16,732 MT, but satisfaction certificates issued by tendering authorities typically mentioned only monetary amounts, not quantities.
• This rigid requirement effectively disqualified bidders who could otherwise demonstrate their experience and capacity through work orders or other documents evidencing the quantity supplied.
• The petitioner sought permission to submit supporting documents to prove compliance, arguing that the insistence on satisfaction certificates alone was arbitrary and unreasonable.

For the Respondents

The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA), did not contest the petitioner’s grievance. Instead, the AGA submitted that:

• If bidders produced work orders alongside satisfaction certificates, indicating the total quantity supplied, the same would be considered for technical evaluation.
• This submission effectively addressed the petitioner’s concern, rendering the dispute amenable to resolution without further adjudication.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the petitioner’s grievance stemmed from the rigid interpretation of the qualification criteria, which mandated proof of supply quantity solely through satisfaction certificates. The Court noted that:

• Satisfaction certificates often do not specify quantities, only monetary values, which could disadvantage bidders who had otherwise fulfilled the requisite supply obligations.
• The respondents’ willingness to consider work orders and other documents as proof of quantity supplied aligned with principles of fairness and equity in public procurement.
• The Court emphasized that tender processes must balance strict compliance with qualification criteria and the broader objective of ensuring fair competition and preventing arbitrary disqualification.

The Court relied on the principle that public procurement must be conducted in a manner that promotes competition and does not unjustly exclude qualified bidders. By accepting the respondents’ submission, the Court ensured that the tender process would not be vitiated by an overly technical interpretation of the qualification criteria.

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. The petitioner was granted liberty to upload not only satisfaction certificates but also work orders and any other documentary evidence proving the quantity of supplies made.
2. The respondents were directed to consider such documents for the purpose of technical evaluation, ensuring that the petitioner’s bid was not disqualified on technical grounds.
3. The impugned tender notification and pre-bid clarification were effectively modified to allow flexibility in proving compliance with the supply quantity requirement.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Flexibility in Proof of Qualification Criteria

This judgment establishes that tender qualification criteria must not be interpreted rigidly if alternative documentary evidence can substantiate compliance. Practitioners should note:

• Work orders and other documents can be submitted alongside satisfaction certificates to prove supply quantities, especially when the latter do not specify quantities.
• Courts are inclined to intervene where rigid interpretation of tender conditions leads to arbitrary disqualification of otherwise qualified bidders.

Balancing Strict Compliance with Fair Competition

• Public procurement authorities must ensure that qualification criteria are drafted clearly and do not impose unreasonable burdens on bidders.
• Bidders facing disqualification on technical grounds should explore legal remedies, particularly where alternative evidence can demonstrate compliance with tender requirements.

Precedential Value for Tender Disputes

• This judgment reinforces the principle that tender processes must adhere to principles of natural justice and fairness.
• It serves as a precedent for challenging overly restrictive qualification criteria in future tender disputes, particularly where bidders can demonstrate their capacity through alternative means.