The judgment emphasized the mandatory submission of essential documents as outlined in the Tender Document and highlighted the limited scope of judicial interference in contractual matters.

B.R. Gavai, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. The petitioner firm has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent nos.2 to 4 in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner.

3. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 had invited tenders for supplying and stacking of 1,50,000 cum machine crushed ballast between Seoni (including) (conforming to specifications of machine crushed stone ballast issued by RDSO, corrected up to date) in cess, in formation or in yards, in connection with gauge conversion between Chhindwara-Nainpur vide tender Notice No. CEC/BSP/2015-16/60. The tenders were to be submitted in two envelopes. The first envelope was pertaining to the technical and financial capacity of the bidder and the second envelope was with regard to the price bid. In response to the tender notice dated 2nd September 2015 as may as eight bidders had submitted their bids. The first envelopes were opened on 23rd December, 2015 in which the petitioner and one another bidder were found to be disqualified. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Shri Nitin Lambat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Sunil Manohar, learned senior counsel for respondent no.5.

5. Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have grossly erred in rejecting the bid of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the documents with regard to the bidding capacity. Learned senior counsel submits that the qualifying conditions for individual bidders and joint ventures were different. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that clause 5 of the Tender Document specifically deals with the individual bidders on one hand and the joint ventures bidders on the other hand. He submits that insofar as the bidding capacity is concerned, it is required to be submitted only by the individual tenderer and not by the joint venture tenderer. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that the action of the respondents in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is totally unsustainable in law. Learned senior counsel relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95, submits that in any case, the condition regarding the bidding capacity cannot be held to be an essential condition and the rejection of the technical bid on the ground of non-supply of the documents pertaining to bidding capacity would not be permissible in law.

6. Shri Nitin Lambat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4, on the contrary, submits that the rejection of the bid of the petitioner is not only on the ground of non-submission of papers as regards bidding capacity, he submits that the essential documents which are required to be submitted as per clause (6) of the Tender Document, have not been supplied by the petitioner. He submits that in any case an interference by this Court would be warranted only if the action of the respondents/authorities is found to be arbitrary or mala fide. He further submits that even after rejection of the bid of the petitioner and one another bidder, there are in all total six bidders in the fray and, therefore, it cannot be argued that the action of the respondents is either mala fide or arbitrary.

7. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned senior counsel submits that since the petitioner-firm has not submitted the necessary documents, its technical bid was rightly rejected. He submits that since the respondent no.5 was the lowest bidder, the award of contract in favour of respondent no. 5 warrants no interference.

8. For considering the rival submissions of the respective parties, it would be necessary to refer to clause 5 and clause 6 of the Tender Document. Insofar as clause 5 is concerned, it