1. Tender bid disqualification — Non-submission of joint venture agreement to prove proportionate share in past experience — Challenge to technical bid rejection. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1653
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11726 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1940 of 2025)
Decided On : 09-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devendra V. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Dhruv, Adv. Mr. Nischay Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ghate, Adv. Mrs. Farah Hashmi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nikhil Nasre, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. K.m Abish, Adv. Mr. Manan, Adv. Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Satija, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devendra V. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Dhruv, Adv. Mr. Nischay Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ghate, Adv. Mrs. Farah Hashmi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nikhil Nasre, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. K.m Abish, Adv. Mr. Manan, Adv. Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Satija, AOR
Tender conditions must be clear; rejection based on non-submission of non-mandatory documents is unjustified.
Headnote:(A) Tendering Process - Validity of Bid - The appellant’s bid was rejected for non-submission of the Joint Venture agreement as per Clause 5
(D) of the NIT; however, the court found no express requirement for this submission, holding that the work execution certificate sufficed to demonstrate participation in the consortium. High Court’s upholding of disqualification was thus unjustified. Clause 5
(B) regarding washery capacity was also addressed, with the court remanding for reconsideration. (Paras 9, 14-21)
(B) Interpretation of Terms in NIT - The court emphasized clear and unambiguous terms in the NIT must be adhered to for bidder compliance, and actions taken without giving opportunity to contest them are impermissible. (Paras 22-24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant participated in a tender for coal beneficiation but was disqualified by the Committee due to missing documentation regarding their consortium. They challenged this decision in court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld disqualification due to non-compliance with terms of the NIT, but the Supreme Court found this arbitrary, requiring review of technical compliance and re-examination of washery capacity.
Issues: The principal issues addressed were whether the JV agreement was mandatory for proving consortium experience and the validity of found washery capacity concerning disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court’s reliance on ambiguous requirements and failure to provide an opportunity to contest newly raised issues was deemed improper; the committee acted against unwritten principles of fair adjudication.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; High Court’s decision set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether submission of joint venture agreement was implicit for proving experience — Validity of rejecting bids for incomplete documents versus seeking clarifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. NIT conditions must be unambiguous — Work execution certificates stating proportionate share suffice unless the agreement is expressly mandated — Right to seek additional information. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Mandatory tender requirements must be explicitly stated — Courts cannot disqualify bidders on grounds not considered by the evaluation committee without providing a hearing. (Para 19 , 24 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside — Matter remanded for fresh consideration of spare washing capacity and validity of the work order. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Must a bidder be disqualified if they provide a certificate of experience but not the underlying agreement, where the NIT is silent on the agreement?
No. Tender conditions must be clear and unambiguous. If the NIT does not expressly mandate the submission of a specific document to prove a qualification, a bidder cannot be disqualified for its absence if other submitted documents sufficiently establish the criteria. (Para 19 )
7. Does a prohibition on submitting shortfall documents prevent a tendering authority from seeking clarifications to verify eligibility?
No. While a shortfall window may be prohibited, the authority retains the right to seek additional information or clarifications to assess the credibility, capability, and capacity of a bidder to perform the contract to satisfy itself of the bidder's eligibility. (Para 19 )
8. Can a court disqualify a bidder on grounds not considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee?
No. It is impermissible for a court to travel beyond the reasons provided by the evaluation committee to disqualify a bidder, particularly on contentious issues, without giving the bidder an opportunity to controvert those new grounds. (Para 24 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
Factual Matrix
2. In response to Notice Inviting Tender1[ID 2024_MPPGC_341576_1, hereinafter referred to as “NIT”.] dated 17.05.2024, issued by the 1st respondent for the purpose of run-of-mine (ROM) coal beneficiation and managing logistics from Western Coalfields Ltd.2[Hereinafter “WCL”.] (Nagpur area) sources for Shree Singaji Thermal Power Project, Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh), the appellant and two others, namely the 2nd respondent3[Rukhmai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.] and one M/s NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had submitted their bid.
3. As NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. could not furnish earnest money deposit, only the appellant and the 2nd respondent remained in the fray. On 04.07.2024, the Tender Evaluation Committee4[Hereinafter referred to as “The Committee”.] while referring to Clause 5(D)5[Clause 5(D): “Past Experience: Copies of successfully executed orders (including part executed) in the name of bidder for same or similar work {similar work means coal lifting from mines of CIL subsidiaries or SCCL area, coal beneficiation (through wet process), movement of washed coal by road from washery to railway siding and movement of washed coal through Railways with experience in liaisoning with Railways/ CIL subsidiaries or SCCL area, i.e., arranging rakes, dispatches coal from own or leased Private siding or Goods shed Railways siding by loading of washed coal into railway wagons through own arrangement with monitoring the rake movement etc. up to the destination Power house}. Bidder is allowed to use past experience of their previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in that consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if not defined in the Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria of the tender. The order copies should indicate the above w/ork for 4 Lakh MT (4,00,000 MT) quantity or more in stale Owned Power Generating Companies or Other Captive Power Utilities of PSU or NTPC or Govt. Industries / Departments or Semi Govt. Industries / Departments or PSUs or Nodal Agency of any PSUs in India executed in last five years ending with initial date of opening of bid are to be uploaded. This order execution should be within a period of twelve (12) months. It may be through single or multiple orders (in parallel), but in case of multiple orders; these should be within a single span of time period of twelve (12) months.
1. The work execution certificate by the customers along-with self-attested un-priced copies of aforesaid work order(s) should be submitted.
2. For Past performance certificates - If worked with MPEB/ MPSEB/ MPPGCL in past for similar work, then it is mandatory to provide Satisfactory Performance Certificate for the same. Failing this, the offer shall not be considered.” (emphasis supplied)] of the NIT rejected the appellant’s technical bid holding as follows –
“As per Clause No. 5(D) “Past experience criteria” of NIT, bidder is allowed to use past experience of their previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in that consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if not defined in the Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria of the tender.
The firm has used the credentials of their consortium M/s Hind-Maha-Mineral LLP for meeting out the past experience criteria. However, Agreement of the Consortium/JV is not submitted to substantiate the share of the bidder in that consortium. Bidder is disqualified due to non-submission of credentials as per Clause No. (5)D of the NIT.”
4. Appellant challenged the decision of the Committee before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.6[Writ Petition No. 18286/2024] Appellant contended neither Clause 5(D) nor any terms of the NIT expressly required a bidder who was relying on past-experience of a previous consortium or joint venture7[Hereinafter referred to as “JV”] to produce the JV agreement itself to demonstrate its proportionate share in the consortium. In term
