Variation In Physical Signature No Ground To Reject Bid If Submitted Via Secure Digital Signature Certificate: Orissa High Court

"Since the DSC is a secure credential that cannot be used by others without the owner’s knowledge, the committee finds no grounds to question the authenticity of his participation; a variation in signature does not constitute sufficient grounds for rejection," Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, held that minor variations in a bidder's physical signature and the non-filling of non-mandatory schedules cannot be grounds to disqualify a bid, especially when the bid is submitted through a secure Digital Signature Certificate (DSC).

A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that the sanctity attached to online bid submissions via DSC ensures authenticity, and courts must exercise restraint in interfering with the commercial wisdom of tender committees.

The petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder (L-2), challenged the Bhadrak Municipality's decision to award three paver road construction contracts to the second opposite party (L-1). The challenge was primarily based on two grounds: that the successful bidder signed as "Rajesh Nayak" instead of his full name "Rajesh Kumar Nayak," and that he failed to provide complete details in Schedule-B regarding works in hand. The petitioner sought the quashing of the tender allotment and a direction to award the contract to himself.

The primary question before the court was whether a variation in a physical signature vitiates a bid submitted through a verified Digital Signature Certificate. The court was also called upon to determine whether the non-filling of columns in a tender schedule not expressly marked as "mandatory" justifies the rejection of a bid under the principles of judicial review.

Scope Of Judicial Review In Tender Matters

The Court began by reiterating the established principle that a writ court does not sit as an appellate authority over a Tender Committee. The bench noted that judicial review is strictly directed toward the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. Citing the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in UGC-STA (Joint Venture) v. Coal India Limited, the bench emphasized that tender matters are not decided by running a "fine tooth-comb" over the process to discover minor clerical omissions.

Court Defines Limits Of Interference In Commercial Contracts

The bench observed that if an executive authority has acted within its jurisdiction, adopted a reasonable procedure, and rendered a cogent decision, the writ court will not intervene. The judges noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any unfairness, arbitrariness, or mala fides in the procedure adopted by the Bhadrak Municipality's Tender Committee.

Authenticity Of Bids via Digital Signature Certificates

Addressing the discrepancy in the signature, the Court highlighted the technological security provided by the e-procurement system. It noted that the Tender Call Notice (TCN) required bidders to possess a Class-II or Class-III Digital Signature Certificate (DSC). The bench agreed with the Tender Committee's reasoning that since a DSC is a secure credential that cannot be used without the owner's knowledge, the authenticity of the participation remained unquestionable despite the variation in the physical signature name.

Sanctity Attached To Online Bid Submissions

The Court held that the variation between "Rajesh Nayak" and "Rajesh Kumar Nayak" was inconsequential in light of the DSC verification. The bench remarked that the Committee’s decision to obtain an explanatory affidavit instead of rejecting the bid was a reasonable exercise of discretion. It emphasized that the digital signature serves as the primary mode of authentication in modern e-tenders, overriding minor manual clerical variations.

Distinction Between Essential And Ancillary Tender Conditions

Regarding the incomplete Schedule-B, the Court analyzed whether the condition was "mandatory" or "directory." It observed that the TCN checklist expressly marked certain documents, like the Schedule-F Affidavit, as mandatory, but did not do so for Schedule-B. The bench referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, which distinguishes between essential conditions of eligibility and ancillary conditions where deviations are permissible.

Non-Mandatory Requirements Do Not Entail Automatic Rejection

The bench noted that since Schedule-B was not designated as an essential condition, and considering that most bidders had not filled it properly, the Tender Committee was within its rights to accept the bid. The Court held that the author of the tender document is the best judge of its requirements and can grant relaxations for non-essential conditions if they do not affect the core eligibility of the bidder.

Primacy Of The Author’s Interpretation In Tenders

The Court emphasized that the interpretation of tender documents provided by the authority that authored them must be accepted if it is a plausible view. Citing Silppi Construction Contractors v. Union of India, the bench noted that the court's interference should be minimal, as the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its own requirements. It held that the petitioner could not force a different interpretation merely because it favored his private interest.

Public Interest And The Principle Of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit

The Court observed that work orders had already been issued and substantial work (50% in one item) had been completed before an interim stay was granted. Applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no one), the bench held that the stay had stalled public utility works. The Court directed that the works be implemented forthwith, with suitable modifications to the contract duration to account for the time lost during litigation.

The Court concluded that there was no perversity or irrationality in the Tender Committee’s decision-making process. The bench dismissed the writ petition, holding that minor procedural aberrations do not warrant judicial interference at the cost of public interest and the timely completion of infrastructure projects.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026