Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CJ., VINAY SARAF, J.
Maha Mineral Mining And Beneficiation Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18286 of 2024
Decided On : 23-03-2026
Tender -- petitioner-appellant disqualified for non-compliance of requirement in terms of Cl. 5(B) of Notice Inviting Tender -- Supreme Court directed High Court to consider whether petitioner had requisite spare washing capacity as per Cl. 5(B), and validity of work order in favour of respondent No. 2 -- washery of petitioner had capacity of 2.4 MMT per annum and only 0.9 MMT per annum was committed to MSMC contract -- 1.5 MMT per annum still available -- neither MSMC contract, nor NIT has exclusivity clause -- this implies that petitioner is entitled to use balance capacity for non-exclusive contract work -- Supreme Court has held that production of Joint Venture Agreement was not mandated by NIT, thus, its stipulation that washeries shall be kept free and cannot be used for any other work cannot be relied upon to contend that petitioner did not have capacity as per Cl. 5 (B) -- same cannot be a ground to disqualify bid of petitioner -- held -- petitioner has requisite spare washing capacity in terms of Cl. 5(B) of NIT -- bid of petitioner is technically qualified -- matter remitted to Tender Inviting Authority to consider bid of petitioner in accordance with NIT and law -- allotment of work to respondent No. 2 shall be subject to outcome of consideration of bid of petitioner, in terms of order of Supreme Court in 2025 (4) JLJ 1 (SC). Earlier set aside order reported in 2025 (1) JLJ 381 2025 (4) JLJ 1 (SC) followed. [Paras 36 to 42
fufonk & ;kph-vihykFkhZ fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk ds [kaM 5¼[k½ ds fucaèkukuqlkj vis{kkvksa ds vuuqikyu ds dkj.k fujgZ Bgjk;k x;k & mPpre U;k;ky; us mPp U;k;ky; dks ;kph ds ikl [kaM 5¼[k½ ds vuqlkj visf{kr vfrfjä ç{kkyu {kerk gksus ;k ugha gksus ij] rFkk çR;FkhZ Ø- 2 ds i{k esa dk;kZns'k dh fo/kekU;rk ij fopkj djus dk funs'k fn;k & ;kph ds ç{kkyd dh {kerk 2-4 ,e,eVh çfro"kZ Fkh rFkk ,e,l,elh lafonk dks ek= 0-9 ,e,eVh çfro"kZ dk opu fn;k x;k Fkk & 1-5 ,e,eVh çfro"kZ fQj Hkh miyC/k & u rks ,e,l,elh lafonk esa] u fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk esa gh vuU;rk [kaM & bldk rkRi;Z gS fd ;kph 'ks"k {kerk dk mi;ksx xSj -vuU; lafonk dk;Z ds fy, djus dk gdnkj gS & mPpre U;k;ky; us vfHkfuèkkZfjr fd;k gS fd fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk ds vuqlkj lg&m|e djkj dh çLrqfr vkKkid ugha Fkh] vr%& ;g ladFku djus ds fy, fd ;kph ds ikl [kaM 5 ¼[k½ ds vuqlkj {kerk ugha Fkh] mlds bl vuqca/k dk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrk fd ç{kkyd [kkyh j[ks tk,¡xs vkSj mudk mi;ksx vU; fdlh dk;Z ds fy, ugha fd;k tk ldsjZ~xk ;g ;kph dh cksyh fujgZ djus dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldjZ~rk vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;kph ds ikl fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk ds [kaM 5¼[k½ ds fuca/kukuqlkj visf{kr vfrfjä ç{kkyu {kerk gS & ;kph dh cksyh rduhdh :i ls vgZ gS & ;kph dh cksyh ij fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk vkSj fof/k ds vuqlkj fopkj fd, tkus ds fYks, ekeyk fufonk vkea=.k çkf/kdkjh dks çsf"kr & çR;FkhZ Ø- 2 dks dk;Z dk vkcaVu] 2025 ¼4½ ts,yts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ esa mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds fucaèkukuqlkj ;kph dh cksyh ij fopkj ds ifj.kke ds v/;/khu gksxkA iwoZrj vikLr vkns'k 2025 ¼1½ ts,yts 381 esa laçdkf'krA 2025 ¼4½ ts,yts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 36 ls 42
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of tender procedure and technical disqualification criteria. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. initial judicial review of disqualification on consortium agreement grounds. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. supreme court rulings limiting tribunal authority beyond evaluation committee reasons. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. assessment of joint venture contract obligations regarding asset availability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. interpretation of nit washery capacity vs. contractual exclusivity requirements. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. limits on evaluation: prohibited from introducing extraneous grounds for disqualification. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. final court order directing re-evaluation of tender bid. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. This Petition has been taken up for disposal pursuant to an order of remand by the Supreme Court of India by it judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 11726/2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1940/2025), whereby the Supreme Court has directed this Court to consider whether petitioner had requisite spare washing capacity as per Clause 5(B) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) and the validity of the work order in favour of the 2nd respondent in light of such decision.
2. Petitioner had filed this petition inter alia impugning the decision of Respondent No. 1, the Tender Inviting Authority, dated 04.07.2024 whereby petitioner had been disqualified. Petitioner had also sought a declaration that Petitioner was duly qualified to participate as per the criteria set out in the Notice Inviting Tender and a direction to the respondent to re-evaluate petitioner’s technical bid in accordance with the tender criteria.
3. Initially the petition was filed only against Respondent No. 1, the Tender Inviting Authority. Subsequently the petition was amended to implead the 2nd respondent who was the successful bidder.
4. On 17.05.2024, respondent No.1 had invited electronic tenders from reputed/established contractors for Run of Mine (RoM) Coal Beneficiation and Managing Associated Logistics. Petitioner alongwith other bidders submitted their bids.
5. Petitioner was disqualified and was intimated by communication dated 04.07.2024 that the bid of the petitioner had been rejected during Technical Evaluation by the committee for the reason ‘Bidder is disqualified due to non-submission of credentials as per clause No. (5)D of the NIT’.
6. Relevant portion of Clause (5) D of the NIT dated 17.05.2024 reads as under:
“(5) Credential and PQR:
The prospective bidders who have adequate documents to fulfill criteria of credential and Pre-Qualification Requirement (PQR) as detailed hereunder for the tender, will upload scanned self-certified copies of requisite documents as required in e-tendering process.
The credential documents and Pre-Qualification Requirement for the tender are as under:
A. *****
***** ***** *****
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, ‘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 Joint Venture (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 wo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
