THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (I) DECLARING THAT THE PER UNIT PRICE OF THE PETITIONER'S BID BE TREATED AS INR 476 FOR 1,99,980 UNITS (DRILLING WORKS) AND INR 199.5 FOR 4,09,500 UNITS (REHANDLING OF DUMP D1) RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) Declaring that the per unit price of the Petitioner's bid be treated as INR 476 for 1,99,980 units (drilling works) and INR 199.5 for 4,09,500 units (rehandling of Dump D1) respectively.

(ii) Directing Respondent No.2 to award the Contract to the Petitioner on the basis of / by treating the Petitioner's offer price as INR 476 for Work 1, i.e., driliing, excavating iron ore / waste, crushing and screening from mine benches/faces for a quantity of 1,99,980 metric tons and INR 199.5 for Work 2, i.e., rehandling of Dump D-1, Excavation of ROM, Processing (Crushing and Screening), weighing finished product and hauling to stockyards (maintaining of haul road and water sprinkling) for a quantity of 4,09,500 metric tones;

(iii) Grant costs of this Petition; and

(iv) Pass any other writ, order or direction as deemed necessary by this Hon'ble Court, in the interests of justice and equity.

2. Respondent No. 2 issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) calling for bids from eligible and interested contractors for the execution of works in the Thimmappanagundi Iron Ore Mine (TIOM). The tender contemplated two distinct components of work, namely: (i) drilling operations; and (ii) re handling of ore dumps. The procurement process was structured as a two-cover tender system, requiring submission and evaluation of technical bids in the first instance, followed by the opening and evaluation of financial bids of only those bidders who were found technically qualified. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner submitted its bid on 04.04.2026 within the stipulated time and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notification.

3. The contention of Sri.Aditya Narayan., learned counsel for the Petitioner is that;

3.1. Learned counsel submits that at the time of submission of the bid, the e-procurement portal required the bidder to select the applicable rate of Goods and Services Tax (GST). It is pursuant to such a requirement that the Petitioner selected the GST rate at 18% while submitting its bid. Consequently, the unit rate reflected on the portal at Rs.561.68/- represented the aggregate of the basic bid amount together with GST. In contrast, the bid submitted by respondent No.3 at Rs.468/- was exclusive of GST.

3.2. It is therefore contended that, for the purpose of evaluation of the financial bids, the GST component ought to have been added to the bid amount quoted by respondent No.3 so as to enable a like-to-like comparison between the competing bids.

3.3. Alternatively, learned counsel submits that if the respondents were of the view that GST ought not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of evaluation, then the GST component included in the Petitioner's quoted rate ought to have been excluded and the comparative evaluation undertaken on that basis. According to him, the bids ought to have been evaluated either on a GST-inclusive basis or on a GST-exclusive basis uniformly in respect of all bidders.

3.4. On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel contends that the financial evaluation undertaken by the respondents suffers from arbitrariness inasmuch as the Petitioner's bid has been considered inclusive of GST, whereas the bid of respondent No.3 has been considered exclusive of GST. Such unequal treatment, according to him, has resulted in a distorted comparison of the bids and has vitiated the decision-making process. He therefore submits that the consequential award of Contract and issuance of work order in fav