1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the impugned communication dated 9th March, 2026 wherein it is informed to the petitioner that upon checking buyer not opt the MSE/MII/purchase preference during bid creation as a result bidder not avail the MSE/MII purchase preference during participation. Hence, buyer is not eligible to send the price match request.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the M.S.M. had participated in the tender process.

4. As per order dated 23.03.2012 issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in tender participating Micro and Small Enterprises quoting price within price band of L1 + 15% shall also be allowed to supply of portion of requirement by bringing down their price to L1 price in a situation where L1 price of from someone other than a Micro and Small Enterprises and such Micro and Small Enterprises shall be allowed to supply up to 20 per cent of total tendered value.

5. As per the bid price the petitioner is the L3 and quoted Rs.1,55,34,01218.49 wherein the private /added respondent is the L1 bidder has quoted Rs.1,55,26,83,638.14.

6. He submits that the petitioner is covered under Clause 6 of the order dated 23rd March, 2012 as petitioner has quoted the amount less than 15 per cent of the L1 price. In spite of the same, the respondent authorities are not considered the tender bid document of the petitioner for issuing the LOA to the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Steel Authority submits that in the communication dated 9th March, 2026 it is categorically informed to the petitioner that the petitioner has not opted the MSE/MII purchase preference during the bid creation as a result the bid of the petitioner has not been considered as MSME.

8. The SAIL has relied upon a judgment in the case of GTI Infotel Private Limited vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 3467 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had held that the tender process on the GeM Portal is system-driven and automated. Unless the bidder explicitly selects the MSE purchase preference option, the system will automatically treat the bidder as a non-MSE bidder for the purchase of awarding purchase preference.

9. By relying upon the said judgment, he submits in the present case also the petitioner has not given the preference of MSME during the bid process, thus, the bid of the petitioner is taken as a Non-MSME.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the private respondent is the L1 and after being satisfied with the condition of the tender document, the authorities have already issued the LOA in favour of the private respondent and as such, at this stage no interim order can be passed.

11. He submits that in the order dated 23rd March, 2012 it is mentioned that the small enterprises shall be allowed to supply up to 20% of the overall tender that is the 20% of the total annual purchaser of products and services rendered by MSME in a period of three years.

12. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Lifecare Innovations Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 436 and submits that while exercising judicial review of administrative action in the context of Statutes, laws, rules or policies establishing statutory or administrative bodies to implement the provisions of the Act or its policy, the first duty of constitutional courts is to ensure that these bodies are in a position to effectively and efficiently perform their obligations.

13. By relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the authorities have found that the petitioner has not given the preference of the MSME during the bid process and accordingly the petitioner w