IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 47617 of 2025 ADARSH KUMAR GUPTA Versus SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Alabhya Bajpai - Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 3.

ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner has been declared disqualified on the ground of submission of incomplete documents required against clause 9 (b) of the NIT.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 3 Department issued an advertisement on 15.10.2025 inviting tender for hiring of School Buses under different item category. The petitioner applied for the tender with all requisite formalities through Bid Submission Confirmation Sheet wherein entire details have been furnished by the petitioner and Online submission report generated. The respondents has issued the General Condition of Contract specifying the entire terms and condition for the slices issued in difference schedule by the respondents. After submitting entire formalities as required by the respondents, the bid assessment was done, whereupon during technical evaluation by the respondents, the petitioner has been declared disqualified on the ground of submission of incomplete documents required against clause 9 (b) of NIT.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that clause 9 (b) of the NIT is not applicable to the petitioner on the ground that the contract value for Schedule 5 in NIT is Rs.35,81,078/-, therefore, requirement of submitting work experience of bidder is not required as the contract value of the NIT is less than 50 lacs. The work experience certificate was required only for the work which was exceeding value of Rs.50 lacs. The NIT has been issued for the work mentioned in Schedule 1 to Schedule 5. The petitioner has applied for Schedule 5 of the NIT. After technical evaluation, the petitioner has been disqualified and the work has been allotted to the respondent no. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is more competent amongst all and is fulfilling all the required criteria for allotment of tender to him but the respondents authorities in order to give advantage to the respondent no. 4 have disqualified the petitioner on technical ground. Therefore, this petition is filed.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions pointing out the fact that the disqualification of the petitioner is just and proper. It is argued that the tender for allotment of work was regarding hiring of buses for school purposes. There is a safety concerns as the buses were required for conveyance of the students at large.

5. The petitioner has failed to submit the work experience documents in terms of Clause 9 (b) of the Bid document. Therefore, he was declared disqualified in terms of clause 9 (b) of the NIT which was found to be incomplete. Therefore, no illegality is found in the impugned order. It is next contended that this Court is having limited jurisdiction in contract / tender matters and cannot evaluate the tender documents. The tender documents in terms of the terms and conditions are required to be read as it is as. There cannot be any interpretation of the documents pertaining to the same. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The record indicates that the reason assigned for disqualification of the tender of the petitioner is that he has submitted incomplete documents as required under clause 9 (b) of