WA/2151/2026 of M/S CANWORK AMENITIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA on 16 September 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.28592/2026 (GM-TEN). The appellant filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 [the Railways] to reconsider the rejection of the appellant’s technical bid in evaluation of GEM Bid No.GEM/2026/B/7607219 dated 05.06.2026.

2. The Railways uploaded a tender through the GEM portal for providing "Linen Distribution Services in AC Coaches of Primary Trains at YPR Coaching Depot, Bengaluru Division, for a period of (Four) 04 years on Manpower Basis", for a total value of `45,53,71,361/-. The appellant participated in the said bid, but was disqualified on two grounds. First, that the power of attorney submitted by the bidder is invalid and unenforceable; and second,

HC-KAR

that the bidder has failed to qualify the technical eligibility conditions of "T2 liquidity ".

3. As to the power of attorney, the objection is that it was insufficiently stamped, which the appellant says is cured. Stamping of a document is clearly a curable defect. Prima facie, we cannot accept that it would raise a doubt as to the authority of the person furnishing and signing the bid. The principal issue is the appellant's failure to comply with the technical condition of furnishing "T2 liquidity".

4. The tender conditions required the appellant to either furnish its financial statements evidencing sufficient liquidity for performing the contract or a liquidity certificate from the bank in the specified format. The said certificate essentially requires the bank to certify that "the appellant was a reputed company with a good financial standing". And second, that if the contract was awarded, the bank would be willing to provide an overdraft facility to the specified extent to meet the working capital requirements and costs. The appellant did not furnish the certificate in the aforesaid format. It submitted a solvency certificate whereby the bank certified that the

HC-KAR

appellant was "respectable and can be treated as good up to a sum of `2,27,68,600/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Seven Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand and Six Hundred only)”. The learned Single Judge found that the certificate did not comply with the format specified in the tender conditions. The appellant challenges the same on the ground that the certificate of subsistence had met with the said condition.

5. We cannot fault the learned Single Judge's decision that the certificate did not comply with the prescribed format. The purpose of requiring such a certificate of solvency was to assure the department that the necessary working capital would be made available to the bidder. However, instead, the bank has issued a solvency certificate with a caveat that the information was "without any risk and responsibility".

6. It is relevant to note that after the Railways rejected the technical bid on a query raised, the bank issued the certificate directly in the required format.

HC-KAR

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the aforesaid defect is curable and the same has since been cured. He submits that the appellant ought not to be excluded from the bid on that basis.

8. Mr Arvind K Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Railways, points out that the appellant has already made a representation in this regard which is pending consideration.

9. We find no infirmity in the impugned order in finding that the certificate initially furnished by the appellant did not comply with the tender conditions. No interference in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted.

10. The issue is whether the Railways consider it apposite to permit curing of the said deficiency or consider it as incapable of rectification at this stage. This discretion rests with the Railways. The learned ASG submits that the representation made by the appellant would be independently considered uninfluenced by the decision of the learned Single Judge or this Court.

HC-KAR

11. The Railways are bound down to the said statement.

12. The present appeal is dismissed.

13. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16