Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 837 of 2026 Shiromani Industries Private Limited-Jamshedpur Resources Private Limited (a Joint Venture entity), having its Unit at Plot No. 813(P). Village Turi, Potka. P.O. Gittilata, P.S. Patka, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand), PIN 831002, through its Authorized Signatory, Vivek Kejriwal, aged about 43 years, son of Pradip Kumar Kejriwal resident of Flat No. 501, Krishna Block, Road No. 5, Hari Om Nagar, Heaven River View Society, Adityapur, Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Tourism, Art Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Department, having its office at MDI Building, 2nd Floor, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur. District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834004. 2. Joint Secretary, Department of Tourism, Art Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Department, having its office at MDI Building, 2nd Floor, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834004. 3. Under Secretary, Department of Tourism, Art Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Department, having its office at MDI Building, 2nd Floor, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834004. 4. Director, Tourism, Directorate of Tourism, Department of Tourism, Art Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Department, having its office at MDI Building, 2nd Floor, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834004. 5. Deputy Director, Directorate of Tourism, Department of Tourism, Art Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Department, having its office at MDI Building, 2nd Floor, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834004. 6. Under Secretary, Department of Industries, having its office at Yojna Bhawan (Nepal House), Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda. District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834002. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB 7. Das & Kumars, a Partnership firm, through its Partners, having its office at D-63/10, Mahmoorganj, P.O. and P.S. Mahmoorganj, District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), PIN 221010. 8. The Scientific Instruments Corporation of India (P.) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956/2013, through its Director, having its office at D-63/10 Mahmoorganj, P.O. and P.S. Mahmoorganj. District Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), PIN 221010. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For Resp. No.7: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For Resp. No.8: Mrs. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kataruka, Advocate --------- 04/Dated: 15.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the acceptance of 7th respondent’s proposal for procurement, design, fabrication and supply of floating restaurant to the Director of Tourism, Government of Jharkhand. 3. Mr Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions and urged that based upon the same, the bid of the 7th respondent should not have been accepted:- (i) The percentage calculation under the QCBS system was never disclosed in the Request for Proposals (RFP) documents. The Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB same was disclosed and applied after the bids were opened, and this would amount to a change of the rules of the game after the game had already commenced; (ii) That this was a case of cartelisation between the respondent nos. 7 and 8. This contention was later modified to submit that though cartelisation may not have had an effect on the acceptance of the 7th respondent’s proposal, still, this was a case of the 7th respondent misrepresenting the true and correct facts. Therefore, based upon the RFP documents, the 7th respondent’s bid should have been rejected at the threshold. (iii) Regarding the RFP documents, proper indexing and sequencing were mandatory. The 7th respondent did not comply with this. Such non-compliance is admitted by the 7th respondent in the counter-affidavit filed in this petition. (iv) The documents uploaded by the 7th respondent lack a digital signature. This was a mandatory requirement, and therefore, the bid of the 7th respondent should have been rejected. (v) The requirement regarding Geo-Tagging as provided in the RFP was not met by the 7th respondent. This is a mandatory requirement, and on account of such non-compliance, the 7th respondent’s bid should have been rejected. 4. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State and State Authorities and Mr Indrajit Singh appearing for the 7th respondent have disputed the above contentions. They have contended that there was Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB due compliance and based upon the grounds raised therefore, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. They submitted that the petitioner took part in the tender process without any demur and cannot now be allowed to challenge the process after participation. They referred to and relied on certain decisions to submit that this petition does not deserve to be admitted. 5. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 6. This is not a case where the petitioner’s bid/proposal was excluded from consideration. The petitioner’s bid/proposal has been duly considered along with other bidders, including the 7th respondent. Upon the Committee's evaluation, however, the 7th respondent was adjudged the successful bidder, and the 7th respondent's proposal was accepted. Therefore, the only question to be decided in this matter is whether there was any legal infirmity in the acceptance of the 7th respondent’s bid/proposal. 7. As regards the arguments based on not providing the percentage calculation under the QCBS system, we note that Clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the RFP document clearly state that the evaluation will follow the QCBS method, wherein the highest-scoring bidder, after combining the marks awarded for technical specifications and financials, will be selected. Besides, it was pointed out that the QCBS method is quite well known and the same has been described in the Manual for Procurement of Non-Consultancy Services, 2025, issued by the Government of India. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB 8. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner raised any query in the pre-bid meeting, if indeed there was some ambiguity regarding the evaluation under the QCBS method. Instead, the petitioner participated in the process based on the information disclosed in the RFP documents. Only after the petitioner’s bid was evaluated along with other bids, but the petitioner who secured only 75 marks out of 100, as compared to the 95 marks out of 100 secured by the 7th respondent, has raised such a belated challenge. 9. Accordingly, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the ground raised and based upon such a ground, we cannot hold that this is a case of change of rules of the game, after the game had commenced or that there is any infirmity in the acceptance of the 7th respondent’s bid, based on the ground now raised. 10. Insofar as the argument of cartelisation is concerned, it was almost conceded that this aspect would have no impact on the outcome of the declaration that the 7th respondent was the successful bidder. The argument about misrepresentation is also misconceived in the facts of the present case. There is nothing on record to infer that the correct facts were not disclosed or that any misrepresentation was practised. 11. Ultimately, the record shows that the 8th respondent, with whom the 7th respondent was alleged to have a cartel, was not selected, having secured only 55 marks out of 100. The record shows that the 8th respondent was disqualified for failing to meet the technical specifications. Therefore, we are satisfied that this ground is not made Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB out and based upon the same, there is no warrant to interfere with the acceptance of the 7th respondent’s proposal in this matter. 12. The third ground relates to the failure of the 7th respondent to provide any index. The tender clause provides that the bidder must submit a detailed index page with clearly stated page numbers for each document submitted, as required in this RFP. The record shows that a detailed index page was not supplied. However, all documents with sequencing and page numbers were supplied. This, according to us, was more than sufficient compliance with the requirements of the tender clause, which, in any case, relates more to form than to substance. 13. The learned Advocate General invited our attention to the set of documents submitted by the 7th respondent. From perusal of the same, we find that, except for the detailed index, the documents were submitted in sequence. Based, therefore, on such a requirement of supplying a detailed index, we cannot say that there was any substantial breach of a mandatory or a substantive condition, based upon which the 7th respondent’s proposal ought to have been rejected. 14. Insofar as the argument of digital signature is concerned, again, we detect no failure of compliance. The petitioner's understanding of the concept of uploading the documents with the digital signature may not be correct, given that the Government e-Procurement System was formulated by the National Informatics Centre. A digital signature is not something which, in every case, may be reflected on the document itself. Here, the record shows that it was only after the digital signature Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB was applied that the 7th respondent made the uploading of the documents possible. Therefore, on the grounds of alleged non- compliance with this requirement, there is no question of rejecting the proposal of the 7th respondent. 15. Insofar as Geo-Tagging is concerned, again, we have been shown the documents and are satisfied that there was due compliance. Some confusion was sought to be created by contending that the Technical Officer of the 7th respondent has signed the same, and this does not amount to compliance. The record, however, shows that the Department's Technical Officer has signed this document. This document contains images and the signature of the Technical Officer of the Department. 16. The purpose of Geo-Tagging was to ensure that the bidder has visited the site location for the installation of the floating restaurant, so that, in future, no grievance can be raised by the bidder. Here, this requirement is met because there are images, coordinates, and the signature of the Department's Technical Officer. 17. In Cartel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others, (2019) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the tender terms cannot be interpreted at the behest of the 3rd party competing for the tender, rather than what is propounded by the party framing the tender. 18. We quote paragraphs 37 and 43 of Cartel Infotech Ltd. (supra), because these observations aptly applied to the present matter: - Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB “37. We consider it appropriate to make certain observations in the context of the nature of dispute which is before us. Normally parties would be governed by their contracts and the tender terms, and really no writ would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of Government and public sector enterprises venturing into economic activities, this Court found it appropriate to build in certain checks and balances of fairness in procedure. It is this approach which has given rise to scrutiny of tenders in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It, however, appears that the window has been opened too wide as almost every small or big tender is now sought to be challenged in writ proceedings almost as a matter of routine. This in turn, affects the efficacy of commercial activities of the public sectors, which may be in competition with the private sector. This could hardly have been the objective in mind. An unnecessary, close scrutiny of minute details, contrary to the view of the tendering authority, makes awarding of contracts by government and public sectors a cumbersome exercise, with long drawn out litigation at the threshold. The private sector is competing often in the same field. Promptness and efficiency levels in private contracts, thus, often tend to make the tenders of the public sector a non-competitive exercise. This works to a great disadvantage to the Government and the public sector. 43. We have considered it appropriate to, once again, emphasise the aforesaid aspects, especially in the context of endeavours of courts to give their own interpretation to contracts, more specifically tender terms, at the behest of a third party competing for the tender, rather than what is propounded by the party framing the tender. The object cannot be that in every contract, where some parties would lose out, they should get the opportunity to somehow pick Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:10620-DB holes, to disqualify the successful parties, on grounds on which even the party floating the tender finds no merit.” 19. Besides, we are also satisfied that this is not a case where we should exercise our power of judicial review, given the law laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651. This is not a case of any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety leading to the acceptance of the 7th respondent’s bid. Rather, this appears to be a case where the petitioner, after his bid was considered but the petitioner could not be declared successful in view of the more competitive bid of the 7th respondent, invites this Court to undertake an unduly close scrutiny of minute details contrary to the view of the tendering authority. Any interference in a matter of this nature, in our judgment, would run contrary to the law laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and Cartel Infotech Ltd (supra). 20. For the above reasons, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs. 21. Pending interim applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. 22. No order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 15, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 18-Apr-26