Judicial review in tender matters is limited; disqualification must be based on clear, justifiable criteria, and actions must not display arbitrariness or bias.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

I.A. No. 7462 of 2025.

Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the proposed intervenor, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and 2- Central Coalfields Limited.

This intervention application has been preferred on behalf of M/s APML-MIL JV, wherein a prayer has been made to include the proposed intervener as a party respondent.

It has been submitted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the proposed intervener that the proposed intervener is one of the bidders in the tender floated by Central Coalfields Limited bearing NIT No. CCL/GM(CMC)/A&C/GeM/2024/48 dated 05-12-2024. It has further been submitted that the respondent Central Coalfields Limited had acted in an arbitrary, biased and illegal manner in order to favor the successful bidder and such acts of the respondent CCL is contrary to the settled law that conditions of the tender cannot be tailor made to favor a specific party and exclude all others. On such grounds, a prayer has been made to include the proposed intervener as party respondent in the present writ application.

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL has submitted that the tender was floated in December, 2024 and though an opportunity was given to the participants to put forward their objections to the terms and conditions of the tender document, but the proposed intervener had not done so and, in fact, had participated in the bidding and on being unsuccessful, has raised a plea of anomaly at a belated stage.

Since there appears to be a separate cause of action with respect to the prayer made by the proposed intervener, we do not find any reasons to allow this application and consequently, this interlocutory application stands disposed of with a liberty to the proposed intervener to explore other avenues for redressal of its grievance.

I.A. No. 7462 of 2025 stands disposed of I.A. No. 6187 of 2025.

Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the proposed intervener, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL.

This application has been preferred by the proposed intervener Caliber (JV) to be included as a party respondent in W.P.(C) No. 2706 of 2025.

Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the proposed intervener has submitted that the proposed intervener is a joint venture which had participated in the tender and was declared the L-1 bidder. The proposed intervener has deployed plant and machinery and other equipments in the project site and, in such circumstances, therefore, it is a necessary party to the present proceedings.

We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-CCL.

Since the proposed intervener is the L-1 bidder and challenge having been made by the petitioner to the rejection of its technical bid, it is necessary that the proposed intervener be also heard. Accordingly, we allow this application and permit the proposed intervenor to be impleaded as party respondent no. 3.

I.A. No. 6187 of the 2025 stands allowed.

W.P.(C) No. 2706 of 2025.

1. Heard Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2- Central Coalfields Limited and Mr