The court upheld the validity of tender disqualification based on non-compliance with specified documentation requirements, affirming the decision-making integrity of the evaluation committee.

ORDER

Kait, C.J. -- 1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:--

"(a). Hold and declare that the impugned decision of the respondent dated 4.7.2024 (Annexure (Annexure-P/1) P/1) disqualifying the petitioner from Tender ID No.2024_MPPGC_341576_1, is arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(b) Hold and declare that the petitioner is technically qualified to participate in Tender ID No.2024_MPPGC_341576_1, as per the criteria criteria set out in the Notice Inviting Tender;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of the respondent dated 04.07.2024, disqualifying the petitioner from Tender ID No.2024_MPPGC_ 341576_1;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondent to re re-evaluate evaluate the petitioner's technical bid in accordance with the tender criteria and in a fair and transparent manner;

(e) Grant ant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter.

(f) Quash and set aside the impugned technical summary report, in as much as it disqualifies the petitioner from Tender id No.2024_MPPGC_341576_1."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the Notice Inviting Tender (ID 2024_MPPGC_341576_1) dated 17.05.2024 issued by the respondent No.1- No.1 M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd. for the purpose of RoM Coal Beneficiation and Ma Managing naging Associated Logistics from WCL (Nagpur area) sources for SSTPP, Khandwa (M.P.), the petitioner submitted its bid online on 2.7.2024 after downloading the tender documents from the website of the respondent respondent-company and fulfilled all the requirements as per the NIT. The technical bids were opened on 3.7.2024. However, petitioner's technical bid was rejected stating that the petitioner was disqualified due to non-submission submission of credentials as per clause 5(D) of the NIT.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 rejected the bid of the petitioner arbitrarily without providing any justification, while rejecting, it was only mentioned that the petitioner is disqualified for non-submission non submission of credentials in terms of clause 5(D) D) of the NIT. He further submits that whatever documents which were specified and explicit in the NIT, the petitioner had uploaded those documents and even if the respondent No.1 wanted some more documents to be uploaded, they should have called upon the petitioner and the petitioner would have surely done the needful.

4. Drawing attention of this Court at page 68 of the written synopsis, he further submits that under clause (6) "Techno-Commercial "Techno Commercial Bid" which specifies that bidders must positively complete e-tendering procedure at the website and the bidders shall have to submit the documents as mentioned in sub-clause sub clause (1) and (2) online on the website. The main submission of the petitioner is that whatever docu