The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the specific conditions outlined in an e-tender document, such as the furnishing of an undertaking by the Holding Company, is essential for the validity of the bid and can justify the cancellation of the tender if not met.

JUDGMENT :

Vineet Saran, C.J. - Although the records of the present case are very bulky, but the point involved is short. What we have to consider in the present case is as to whether a particular condition laid down in the e-tender document which, in the present case, is regarding furnishing an undertaking from the Holding Company, has been complied with or not ?

2. Brief facts of the case are that Mahanadi Coal Field Limited (for short 'MCL')-opposite party no.1 had issued a tender notice on 15.06.2015 (Annexure-1) inviting tenders for setting up of 10 MPTA Coal Washery at Jagannath area, MCL on Build Operate Maintain (BOM) concept. The last date for submission of the bids was 11.09.2015. Admittedly, on 09.09.2015 the petitioner-M/s. S.K. Samanta and Co (P) Ltd. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s. Schenck Process India Private Ltd. and M/s. MSDE Engineering Pvt. Ltd., with the petitioner being the lead partner of the consortium. The petitioner, being the Lead Member, was to comply with the requirement of financial eligibility criteria; M/s. Schenck Process India (P) Ltd. was to comply with the technical eligibility criteria regarding setting up of the Washery; and M/s. MSDE Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was to comply with the technical eligibility criteria regarding operation and maintenance of the Coal Washery. The petitioner, as Lead Member, submitted the bid through the consortium route and uploaded relevant documents on the e-procurement portal of the MCL, after furnishing requisite security deposit in the form of bank guarantee of Rs. 50.00 lakh. As per the e-tender document, the technical bids were to be opened on 16.09.2015.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner as well as Global Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd. were the only two parties which were technically qualified. The financial bid was then opened on 20.09.2015, which was as per the scheduled date given in the tender document. The bid of the petitioner was the lowest, at a little over Rs. 4863 crores, i.e. Rs. 4863,31,92,735.09, whereas that of the other bidder, M/s. Global Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd. was little over Rs. 4881 crores, i.e., Rs. 4881,46,15,734.06. On the same day, i.e. on 20.09.2015, the petitioner was declared as the lowest bidder. In terms of the tender document, the petitioner was to furnish the conformity documents by uploading the same on the e-portal of the MCL between 21.09.2015 and 21.10.2015, which, according to the petitioner, were duly uploaded. Then on 07.01.2016 the petitioner was notified by the MCL for further uploading certain documents by 17.01.2016. According to the petitioner, the required documents were uploaded on the e-portal of the MCL on 16.01.2016. At this stage, in response to the query made by MCL, the petitioner had uploaded one letter dated 26.05.2014 of M/s. Schenck Process Holding, GmbH, Germany (for short 'S.P. Holding, Germany'), wherein it was mentioned that M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany confirmed that M/s. Schenck Process India Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'M/s. S.P. India') and M/s. Schenck Process (Tianjin) Industrial Technology Co. Ltd., China (for short 'M/s. S.P. China') form part of group of companies called "Schenck Process Group", which is ultimately owned by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany. This was furnished by the petitioner, as the technical qualification for performing the part of the contract by M/s. S.P. India was to be carried out by M/s. S.P. China, which had the experience of such work and was a part of M/s. Schenck Process Group with M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany as the holding company.

Thereafter there was no communication with the petitioner-company from MCL. However, after getting the aforesaid information by way of documents furnished by the petitioner on 16.01.2016, the opposite party-MCL wrote to M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany on 11.04.2016 requiring them to furnish certain details and clarifications with regard to information furnished by the petitioner. There were five queries/clarifications sought b