Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Mosh Varaya Infraprojects Private ... vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12243-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 237 of 2026
M/s Mosh Varaya Infraprojects Private Limited A Company Having Its
Registered Office At Commercial Unit Part E, Block I, Office No. 004, Shri Ram
Business Park, Amaseoni, Raipur 492014, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Through
Its Director Mr. Sriyans Jain.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Secretary (Coal), Government Of India, A-Wing,
Ministry Of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, New Delhi
110001.
2 - Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Having Its
Headquarters At Coal Bhawan Premise No. 04 Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Action Area-
1a, Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata 7000156, West Bengal.
3 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing
Director Having Its Headquarters At Secl Bhawan, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
495006, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The General Manager Contract Management Cell, South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, Secl Bhawan, Seepat Road, Bilaspur 495006, Chhattisgarh.
5 - TMC Mineral Resources Private Limited A Company Having Its Office
Situated At Flat No. 705, Vip Height, Vip City, Saddu - Urkura Road, Raipur-
492014, Chhattisgarh. Email- [email protected]
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shikhar Shrivastava and Mr. Akshat Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondents(2) No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Singh.
For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. B.P.Sharma with Mr. M.L.Sakat and Mr. Raza Ali, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/03/2026 1 Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shikhar Shrivastava and Mr. Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India/respondent No. 1, Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 as well as Mr. B.P.Sharma, Mr. M.L.Sakat and Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2 By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):
"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order/technical evaluation (Annexure P-1) i.e. decision of Respondent No. 3 & 4, rejecting the bid of the Petitioner; and ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 3 & 4, to reconsider and re-evaluate the technical bid of the Petitioner in a fair, objective, and reasoned manner, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of NIT and applicable law; and/or 3 iii. Pass any other order it may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances in the interest of justice. ."
3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a leading infrastructure and real estate Company engaged in infrastructure development, real estate, mining and logistics business. The Respondent No. 3 issued an E-Tender Notice bearing NIT No. SECL/ BSP/CMC/eTender/KRB/BAG/Trial-CM/25-26/615 dated 29.04.2025 (for short, "the NIT") for the work of "Introduction of 01 no. of Newly Developed Low Height Indigenous Continuous Miner/Similar Equipment with Continuous Cutting Technology on hiring basis for winning coal without blasting for depillaring operation for 8 APP @0.48 MTY at Bagdewa UG Mine of Korba Area of SECL".
4 On 14.07.2025, the petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender issued by respondent No. 3 and duly submitted its technical as well as financial bids on the GeM Portal, in accordance with the prescribed terms and conditions of the tender. Subsequently, the tendering authority pointed out certain shortcomings relating to the submission of documents forming part of the bid, specifically under Clause 7 B(7)(b) and (c) of the NIT. Upon due consideration of the deficiencies highlighted by the tendering authority, the petitioner submitted all the requisite documents in compliance with the tender requirements within the stipulated time, which was duly taken on record by the tendering authority and recorded in the Impugned order/Technical Evaluation Summary (Annexure A-1). The documents submitted by the petitioner included its self-certification in compliance with Clause 7B(7)(c) vide letter dated 22.11.2025 addressed to respondent No. 4, stating that the proposed equipment to be deployed is newly developed and has not been previously deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited, its subsidiaries, or any other mine in India. The 4 petitioner further submitted a Local Content Certificate dated 22.11.2025 issued by statutory/cost auditor in compliance with Clause 7B(7)(b) confirming 57.23% of local content in the proposed equipment meeting the local content requirement for 'Class-I local supplier' as prescribed under Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order, 2017. The petitioner, vide its letter dated 22.11.2025, also forwarded a comprehensive and detailed clarification received from the equipment manufacturer, namely M/s Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "the OEM"), vide its communication dated 20.11.2025. The said clarification elaborately explained and substantiated that the proposed equipment is newly developed product, specifically designed and engineered for the subject tender, and further reaffirmed that the proposed equipment has not been deployed in any other mine. Thereafter on 09.01.2026 at 01:50 p.m. the petitioner received an e-mail from respondent No. 4, enclosing a letter bearing Ref.No. SECL/BSP/SECL/CMC/KRB/NIT-615/205-26/513, whereby respondent No. 4 sought an extension of the validity of the petitioner's bid for a further period of two (2) months, i.e., up to 10.03.2026, on account of the ongoing tender evaluation process. The petitioner, vide its letter bearing Ref. No. MVIPL/SECL/BAG/001/25-26, duly sent through e-mail on the same day at 04:25 p.m., promptly conveyed its consent to the extension of its bid validity for the aforesaid period, as requested by the tendering authority. But to the utter surprise, the petitioner received another e-mail on the same day i.e. 09.01.2026 at 07:24 p.m., whereby the bid of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No 4 during the Technical Evaluation on account of non-fulfilment of the Clause 7B(7) of the tender document. Furthermore, the Earnest Money Deposit (for short, the EMD) of the petitioner was also returned immediately on the next day, without affording any opportunity of hearing.
55 Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the bid of the petitioner by the tendering committee is premised on an erroneous, arbitrary, and fundamentally flawed finding that the proposed equipment is not "newly developed and had already been deployed in various mines of Coal India Limited. The tendering committee rejected the bid solely on the basis of the nomenclature of the proposed equipment, without name and appreciating or examining the technical specifications and configuration of the proposed machine, which depicts non-application of mind. Being aggrieved by the decision of the tendering committee, the petitioner vide its letter bearing Ref No: MVIPL/SECL/BAG/002/25-26 dated 10.01.2026 preferred a formal and detailed complaint before the Independent External Monitor (for short, the IEM). In the said complaint, the, petitioner elaborately highlighted about the erroneous conclusions and observations drawn by the tendering committee. The petitioner further clarified that the proposed equipment is an indigenous, newly developed machine, which is entirely distinct from the earlier imported variants in terms of its technical specifications, design, and configuration. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, a virtual hearing was conducted by the IEM on 11.01.2026, during which the petitioner duly raised and elaborated upon its grievances. However, as on date, the final decision of the IEM remains pending. It is further submitted that, in order to clearly establish the distinction between the imported and indigenous variants of the machine, the petitioner sought a detailed technical clarification from the concerned OEM, with respect to the key differences between the two variants of the equipment. Pursuant thereto, the OEM vide e-mail dated 14.01.2026 sent a comprehensive technical document expressly identifying and highlighting the material differences between the earlier imported MC-350 and the subsequently developed indigenous Indian 6 variant, including differences in configuration, design, and technical specifications. The comprehensive technical document issued by the OEM highlighting key differences between the two variants, unequivocally clarifies and establishes that the proposed equipment, despite bearing the same name and nomenclature, is a newly developed indigenous variant, distinct from the earlier MC-350 LHCM (non-Indian variant). Both the variants differ in terms of configuration, engineering design, manufacturing origin, and technical specifications. However, the respondent authorities, without calling for or considering any such clarification from the petitioner, proceeded to arrive at their erroneous and pre-mature conclusion, rendering the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable. The petitioner has come across publicly available documents evidencing that the proposed equipment by the technically qualified bidder, namely M/s TMC Mineral Resources Private Limited, is part of an existing product line but only with a different name and nomenclature. The petitioner places reliance upon (i) an intimation dated 19.09.2020 issued by Eimco Elecon (India) Limited to the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange, whereby the said manufacturer publicly announced the launch of its Continuous Miner CM 3000 as a new product in the underground mining sector, and (ii) the official product brochure issued by Eimco Elecon titled "Continuous Miner CM 3000 / CM 3500, which depicts CM3500 as a variant within the CM3000/CM3500 Continuous Miner family.
6 Mr. Paranjpe further submits that the petitioner, vide its letter bearing Ref. No. MVIL/SECL/BAG/003/25-26 dated 13.01.2026, addressed to respondent No. 4, brought to the notice about certain discrepancies with respect to the proposed equipment model CM-3500 offered by the technically selected bidder. The petitioner specifically pointed out that the 7 said model had already been deployed as of June 2025 and further highlighted material discrepancies in the technical parameters and eligibility requirements, as prescribed under the terms and conditions of the tender. The petitioner, vide its letter bearing ref. No. MVIL/SECL/BAG/004/25-26 dated 14.01.2026 addressed to respondent No. 4 further highlighted material discrepancies in the document submitted by the technically qualified competing bidder, when compared with publicly available documents relating to the proposed equipment CM-3500 specifically pointing out variations in technical specifications. The petitioner requested a formal review of the said bid in the interest of fairness, transparency, and equal treatment under the tender process. 7 It is further submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that the impugned order/technical evaluation summary dated 09.01.2026 rejected the bid of the petitioner on the alleged ground of non-compliance with Clause 7(B) (7) of the NIT, which is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the express terms of the tender. However, from the base perusal of the said clause, it is clear that Clause 7(B)(7) mandates only three requirements, namely: i) submission of a list of major equipment, ii) submission of a Local Content Certificate with UDIN as applicable, and iii) self-certification that the equipment to be deployed is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited, other PSUs or any other mine in India. The said clause does not prohibit offering of the same or similar model with indigenous development or modification, which has not been deployed earlier at any other mine. The respondent No. 4 in its technical evaluation summary itself recorded that the petitioner duly complied with all requirements of Clause 7(B)(7) by submitting: (i) a valid Local Content Certificate dated 22.11.2025 bearing UDIN certifying 57.23% local content; and (ii) self-certification dated 22.11.2025 by the petitioner 8 affirming that the equipment proposed to be deployed is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited, other PSUs or any other mine in India. Hence, once compliance with all prescribed confirmatory documents stood admitted on record, rejection of the bid under Clause 7(B)(7) is wholly unsustainable in law. The respondent No. 4, in its technical evaluation summary also acknowledged that the petitioner submitted an independent self-certification dated 11.07.2025 issued by the OEM, certifying that the proposed equipment to be deployed is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited, its subsidiaries, other PSUs or any other mine in India, along with an OEM Local Content Certificate dated 13.06.2025 certifying 57.23% indigenous content. Hence, there lies no reason and justification for the tendering committee to reject the bid of the petitioner disregarding such confirmatory documents as prescribed in Clause 7(B) (7) after having accepted the existence, validity and authenticity of these documents. The respondent No. 4 has travelled beyond the scope of the NIT by introducing an impermissible and extraneous disqualification ground that the "same model" of Low Height Continuous Miner (Sandvik MC-350) cannot be treated as "newly developed". The respondent No. 4 has clearly failed to consider that Clause 7(B)(7)(c) does not prohibit offering of the same model or similar model with indigenous development, engineering modification or upgraded configuration, nor does it stipulate that the OEM must not have supplied earlier version of the equipment in the past. Hence, the disqualification of the petitioner solely on the basis that an earlier non-indigenous version with different configuration of the same model had been deployed elsewhere, the tendering committee has effectively rewritten the eligibility criteria at the technical evaluation stage, which is impermissible and violative of settled legal principles of tender jurisprudence. The technical evaluation summary records in detail that 9 the proposed MC-350 Continuous Miner is manufactured in India, has undergone substantial indigenous design and development investing 2000 engineering hours and meets the prescribed local content threshold, and that the indigenous configuration proposed by the petitioner has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited or other PSUs. The technical evaluation committee also recorded that only a non-indigenous or earlier configuration of the model was deployed previously, whereas the indigenous model with modified configuration proposed by the petitioner has not been deployed anywhere in India. However, despite this, the tendering committee concluded that the proposed model has already been deployed at various mines of Coal India Limited. Hence, the impugned order/technical evaluation summary is perverse and suffers from patent non-application of mind and internal contradiction by the respondent authorities. The respondent No. 4 failed to afford any fair or meaningful opportunity to the petitioner to clarify the issue as to whether the equipment proposed to be deployed is "newly developed within the meaning of Clause 7(B)(7)(c), particularly where the proposed equipment bears a similar nomenclature to an earlier non- indigenous model. The tendering committee proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the proposed LHCM MC-350 by the petitioner was the same model and configuration as an earlier non-Indian variant deployed in mines, without granting the Petitioner any opportunity to explain the distinction between the indigenous version offered and the earlier non- indigenous variant.
8 Mr. Paranjpe next submits that the comprehensive technical document issued by the OEM, M/s Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India Pvt. Ltd., clearly highlights that the proposed equipment, though bearing similar nomenclature, is a newly developed indigenous version of the 10 earlier MC-350 LHCM (non-Indian variant), manufactured in India with engineering modifications and indigenous configuration, and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited, other PSUs or any other mine in India. Respondent No. 4, without calling for or considering such clarification, rejected the bid of the petitioner on an assumed interpretation, in violation of principles of natural justice, fairness and transparency governing public procurement. Furthermore, the tendering committee acted arbitrarily and relied upon a generalized ChatGPT (Al- generated) for interpretation of the term "newly developed", which has not been defined in the NIT and reliance on such Al generated definition has no legal sanctity and cannot override or supplement the tender conditions. Respondent No. 4 failed to consider that the Clause 7(B)(7)
(c) or expression "newly developed" must not be interpreted in a manner to defeat the very object and purpose of the tender, which is to promote indigenous manufacturing and Make-in-India initiatives in the underground coal mining equipment. It is undisputed that the tender aims to encourage local manufacturing rather than restrict participation, and thus the disqualification of the petitioner, who offered newly developed indigenously manufactured equipment with certified local content, has resulted in elimination of competition and conversion of the tender into a single bidder case, which is contrary to public interest, transparency and fair procurement norms. The respondent No. 4 failed to apply consistent and legally permissible standards in technical evaluation by qualifying the bid of a competing bidder, namely M/s TMC Mineral Resources Private Limited, who proposed EIMCO ELECON CM3500, without subjecting it to the same rigour as applied to the petitioner under Clause 7(B)(7) (c) of the NIT. As per publicly available record, Eimco Elecon Limited had announced the launch of its Continuous Miner product line (CM3000) as early as 18.09.2020 by way 11 of an intimation to the Bombay Stock Exchange & National Stock Exchange. Further, Eimco Elecon's own product literature titled "Continuous Miner CM 3000/CM 3500" depicts CM 3500 as a variant within an existing Continuous Miner family. Hence, in such circumstances, there are reasons to believe that CM3500 was already deployed as of June 2025; however, no inquiry or verification was undertaken by the Respondents with respect to the competing bidder, whereas the petitioner was subjected to rejection solely on account of same name and nomenclature of the proposed equipment with that of the earlier imported model, without affording any due opportunity of clarification, which is discriminatory and in violation of principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, equal treatment, and a level playing field including Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, Mr. Paranjpe relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Others {2025 SCC OnLine SC 2368}, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another {2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119}.
9 Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India/respondent No. 1 submits that the main contesting party in this petition is the respondents No. 2 to 4 and that respondent No. 1 is a formal party.
10 Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner, who was the bidder No. 3 in the subject tendering process, offered the model bearing name/number MC350, which is made by Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India Pvt Limited. The petitioner, to fulfill the eligibility condition as is prescribed in Clause 7.B.(7) of the NIT which stipulates that the equipment which is being quoted must be 'newly developed and 12 must not be 'deployed at any mine of Coal India Ltd./other PSUs/any other mine in India, submitted a declaration/certification on 22.11.2025 and asserted that the equipment being offered by the Company i.e. MC 350 is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Ltd./other PSUs/any other mine in India. In all earnestness, the bid of the petitioner, as also of other bidders, was placed before and evaluated by the expert Tender Committee. During evaluation/ verification, it was discovered by the Tender Committee that the Sandvik make MC-350 model LHCM, has been deployed at Haldibari UG Mine of JKD Sub Area, Hasdeo Area. That being so, the bid of the petitioner was squarely in contravention of the mandatory terms of the tender and the categorical clarification issued thereof, and that being so was rejected on the technical ground. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Independent Expert Monitor on 10.01.2026, which, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and a detailed analysis of the fact situation, deemed it appropriate to reject the contention of the petitioner and uphold the decision of the Tender Committee. Based upon the report of the Independent Expert Monitor, the respondents duly informed the petitioner of the outcome of its complaint and proceeded thereafter to consider the financial bids of the remaining candidates. 11 Mr. Bharat further submits that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the tender conditions after participating in the process with full knowledge of the disqualification criteria. The precise issue of whether an existing model could be quoted was settled during the pre-bid stage. On 12.07.2025 (prior to the bid submission deadline of 14.07.2025), SECL uploaded Clarification No. CLAR_21909 on the portal. A specific query was raised if a manufacturer has already developed and supplied an indigenous Low Height CM in India, can the 13 bidder quote with a new machine of the same model? to which it was specifically replied in the negative. The petitioner submitted its bid on 14.07.2025, after this clarification was published. As could be gauged, the petitioner was well aware prior to the submission of his bid that equipment already deployed would not be eligible under the tender conditions and the clarifications issued thereon, despite which he took a calculated risk. Despite having the same opportunity as other prospective bidders to seek clarification during the pre-bid stage regarding the acceptability of its offered machine, chose not to attend the pre-bid proceedings. By submitting the bid, the petitioner accepted the condition that the "Same Model' as one already deployed is ineligible. The petitioner cannot now invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to challenge a rule they voluntarily accepted. Any such change in the rules or alteration in interpretation would amount to placing similarly situated prospective bidders at a disadvantage, particularly those who chose not to participate, as their machines, though indigenously manufactured, are already deployed. The petitioner has fundamentally misconstrued the nature of the subject tender (NIT No. 615 dated 29.04.2025). As explicitly stated in the "Standard Bid Document of Trial Tender for Engagement of Newly Developed Indigenous Continuous Miner/Similar Equipment with Continuous Cutting Technology on Hiring Basis and the Ministry of Coal's guidelines on "Measures Being Taken By Govt To Promote indigenous Manufacturing And Self-Reliance In The Coal Sector", the present tender process is distinct from regular procurement. These "Trial Tenders are specifically mandated by the CIL Board (458th and 470th Meetings) to test equipment without any provenness in underground mines. The objective is to encourage innovation by testing new designs as mandated by the Ministry of Coal (for short, the MoC) as is the cherished goal of the Make in India initiative 14 which is an integral and indispensable part of the Viksit Bharat Vision 2047. The petitioner offered the Sandvik MC350 model. It is an fact admitted that the Sandvik MC350 model is already deployed and successfully operating at the Haldibari Underground Mine of SECL. and other mines. Consequently, this model possesses "provenness" in Indian conditions. Accepting a "proven" model in a trial tender would violate the fundamental policy framework intended for unproven, developmental equipment. The petitioner is attempting to secure entry into a Trial Tender' (which has relaxed eligibility criteria intended for nurturing new technology) using a Proven Machine'. Permitting this would defeat the purpose of the categorization and result in an unfair advantage. It is also an attempt to seek relaxations and waivers similar to those granted to non-proven machines, such as a two-year waiver of penalties etc. The issue so raised by the petitioner falls squarely within the domain of executive policy, which has been crafted to meet the ends of organizational needs and requirements of respondent-CIL (parent body of SECL) and the SECL. The policy concerned was formulated by the CIL upon a thorough scrutiny and detailing of its organizational needs and requirements and that of its subsidiary companies including SECL. Further, the entire scheme has been floated to implement the larger and noble vision of the Union of India and the policy decision of the MoC. The said scheme was crafted in the expert domain of Central Government and Coal India Limited wherein a holistic approach was adopted with a view to achieve the end goal i.e. of a self-reliant Vikshit Bharat by the year 2047. Mr. Bharat further submits that the policy issues of State are not to be interfered by Hon'ble Courts they being a product of peculiar needs of the time and occasion. In support of this argument, he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Others, {(2007) 4 SCC 737}, Krishnan 15 Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala and others, {(1997) 9 SCC 495}, Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn. {(2001) 3 SCC 635}, Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, {2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177}. 12 Mr. Bharat further submits that the petitioner has already availed the administrative remedy by approaching the Independent External Monitors (IEMs), a specialized neutral body constituted under the Integrity Pact. The IEMs (Smt. Archana P. Tewari and Shri Vinayaka Rao Turaga) conducted a personal hearing on 11.01.2026 during which the petitioners were heard at length. In their reasoned opinion, the IEMs examined the records and categorically held that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was "consistent with the pre-bid clarification issued by SECL" and the decision was based on a "model based disqualification which was clearly communicated. Hence, the rejection did not suffer from arbitrariness or bias. The contention of the petitioner is that their proposed machine is "Indigenous" (manufactured in Pune with 57.23% local content) and therefore should be treated as "New," distinct from the imported MC 350 at Haldibari. The Tender Committee is bound by the specific text of the Tender Document and the pre-bid clarifications. The clarification explicitly barred the "Same Model". It did not distinguish between an "Imported MC 350" and an "Indigenous MC 350. The definition of "newly developed" in the present tender focuses on the design/model not having been deployed previously. The very idea of a newly developed describes something-an idea, product, technology, or method that has been freshly created and designed and was unknown hitherto. It signifies a state of being fresh, innovative, and often cutting- edge, having just passed through its initial stages of creation or improvement. Since the model MC 350 is deployed, the origin of manufacturing is irrelevant for this specific eligibility clause. The definition 16 of 'Newly Developed' is a technical constraint set by the SECL to ensure genuine innovation. It is a settled principle of law that the owner of the project is the best judge of its requirements. Unless the interpretation is perverse or mala fide, the Hon'ble Courts will not substitute their own interpretation for that of technical experts. The IEMs (experts) have already validated the SECL's interpretation. Mere substitution of imported components with indigenous components ('indigenization') does not automatically render a machine newly developed for a Trial Tender. If the 'model' remains the same, the core engineering design is deemed to be unchanged and the Intellectual Property Rights remain with the parent/foreign company. The petitioner cannot claim the machine is "same' for safety approvals (DGMS) but different/new for this Tender. They cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously. The petitioner alleges that the Tender Committee acted arbitrarily by relying on ChatGPT to define "newly developed". Such an allegation is self-serving. The primary and legally binding basis for the rejection was the mandatory condition of the subject tender official pre-bid clarification (CLAR 21909) and the factual record of the Sandvik MC350's deployment at Haldibari. The reference to Al tools was merely a supplementary internal exercise for general understanding and was not the basis of the administrative decision. The IEMs examined this specific allegation. They concluded that since the pre-bid clarification provided an "independent and sufficient basis for the definition, the reference to Chat GPT was superfluous and "does not vitiate the decision." The respondents are fully committed to the "Make in India" policy. However, the policy to promote indigenous manufacturing does not imply that the specific technical eligibility criteria of a Trial Tender should be waived. The "Trial Tender" mechanism is designed to provide a testing ground for untested technology/ design/model. It is not a mechanism to procure proven technology simply 17 because it is now manufactured locally. The petitioner has levelled a bald and baseless allegation that the tender was scrutinised in a rushed manner with the intent of conferring undue benefit upon TMC Mineral Resources. The said allegation is wholly misconceived, factually incorrect, and deserves outright rejection. The tender was floated on a transparent e-procurement portal where all information was equally accessible to all participating bidders. The date and time for opening of bids were pre-determined, notified in advance, and uniformly applicable to all bidders. The technical bids were opened at 7:24 p.m. on 09.01.2026, and the price bids were originally scheduled to be opened on 10.01.2026 at 2:00 p.m.. During this intervening period, the petitioner chose to file a complaint. Solely on account of the petitioner's own complaint before the IEMs, the opening of the price bids was consciously deferred by SECL. As per the e-procurement portal, SECL was fully entitled to open the price bids on 09.01 2026 itself; however, in order to uphold the highest standards of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity, SECL deliberately refrained from doing. The IEMs thereafter afforded the petitioner an extensive personal hearing of nearly two hours on 11.01.2026 before rendering their opinion. Upon receipt of the said opinion, the findings of the IEMs and the consequential decision were first duly communicated to the petitioner. Only thereafter, and strictly in accordance with due process, were the price bids opened on 23.01.2026. There exists no provision under the NIT permitting the petitioner to seek a re-opinion, review, or clarification of the IEMs findings. The allegation of undue haste is therefore demonstrably false and is nothing but a calculated attempt to derail and stall a transparent tender process that has been ongoing since April 2024. A bare glance at the flow of events as detailed in paragraph 29 of the return filed, would demonstrate that the respondents have conducted themselves with 18 utmost professionalism and integrity and at no point in time, the conduct of the answering respondents could be said to be vitiated by malice or foul play.
13 Mr. Bharat further submits that the petitioner's allegation of disparity in treatment vis-à-vis M/s TMC Mineral Resources, on the premise that the equipment offered by the said bidder is not deployed, is wholly misconceived and factually incorrect. In order to ensure complete transparency and a level playing field, and pursuant to the advice of the IEM in its report dated 11.01 2026, the respondent-SECL undertook a thorough investigation and verification into the equipment offered by the technically qualified bidder to ascertain compliance with the newly evolved criterion clarified during the pre-bid stage. Upon such investigation, it was conclusively established that the equipment, namely CM-3500 manufactured by Eimco Elecon, has not been deployed in any underground mine. In furtherance thereof, SECL sought independent confirmation from the Area General Manager, Pootkee Balihari Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Jarkhand, vide letter dated 12.01.2026, which was unequivocally responded to vide letter dated 13.01.2026. 14 Mr. Bharat next submits that the law with respect to interference in tender matters is limited to certain extent as has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases including in the case of Tata Motors Limited vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) {2023 SCC OnLine SC 671}, Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Others, (Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024, decided on 04.10.2024). The Apex Court has held in categorical terms that the Hon'ble Courts ought to abstain from issuing directions which would be impregnated with financial implications. In support thereof, he places reliance on the decision of the 19 Apex Court in State of Kerala & Another v. Naveena Prabhu & Others {(2009) 3 SCC 649}. Lastly, he prays that that this petition being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
15 Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 in addition to what has been submitted by Mr. Bharat, submits that the prsent writ petition is grossly misconceived and does not lie and further in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed. The petition has been filed by the Company claiming violation of fundamental and constitutional rights. In this regard it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that a juristic person ie a company which comes within the purview of artificial person has filed present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and cannot claim as a citizen any right whatsoever much less fundamental or constitutional rights and in this view of the matter, the petition as framed is not maintainable under the law as for invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a writ petition is only maintainable for enforcement of any of rights conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution of India which is guaranteed to a citizen of India and artificial person cannot claim fundamental rights available to citizens of India. In support thereof, Mr. Sharma places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. V. State of UP & Others, {(2011) 3 SCC 193}. The MoC has mandated four numbers of recommendations put forth Make in India initiatives, by committees implemented by CIL, Govt. of on India out of which the relevant 2 recommendations applicable to the subject tender are (i) Provenness criteria relaxations for Indigenously manufacturing the same model being operated worldwide, to promote manufacturing in India of those models of equipment which are being operated worldwide -floating of Tenders with relaxation in Provenness 20 criteria only, and (ii) "Separate trial tenders for hiring newly developed indigenous Mass Production Technology (MPT) equipment without Provenness in UG Mines with relaxation in clauses, to promote innovation & new technology in India, floating of separate Trial tenders for newly developed technology & also manufactured in India equipment Without provenenness requirement and with relaxation in terms and conditions. Based on such policy and measures being taken up by MoC, Govt. of India, the CIL directed its subsidiaries to float tenders based on the above said two nos of recommendations. The subsidiary SECL, based on the above said second recommendation floated the NIT on 29.04.2025. This tender was a trial tender (as specified in the recommendation of the PIB (Annexure R-5/1) and accordingly specified also in the name of the NIT as SECL/ BSP/ CMS/ eTender/ KRB/BAG/Trial-CM/25-26/615) to promote innovation of new technology in India as well as its manufacturing in India and therefore called for a newly developed indigenous Continuous Miner package equipment The definition of the word "Newly Developed was clearly spelt in the NIT document (Annexure P/3) to the writ petition and also during the Pre-bid meeting held on 12.07.2025, with the prospective bidders, the minutes of which was recorded and uploaded in the tender portal for information to all the prospective bidders, prior to the bid submission due date. The entire petition revolves around the term of the tender i.e. "Newly Developed indigenous continuous miner similar equipment". The definition of the word "Newly Developed" as spelt out by SECL is that the one which is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Ltd /other PSUs/ any other mine in India. The aforesaid is essential term of the tender condition of e-tender notice dated 29.7.2025 It would be beneficial to quote the description of the work which reads as under:
21
'Introduction of 01 Nos. of newly developed low height indigenous continuous miner / similar equipment with the continuous cutting technology on hiring basis for winning coal without blasting for depillaring operations for eight APP 0.48 MTY at Bagdeva UG mine of Korba area of SECL inclusive of-
(1) Scientific study for obtaining DGMS permission for the introduction of 1 (one) Set of Low Height Indigenous continuous Miner (LHCM) Package in the above mine and strata monitoring as required by DGMS.
(II) Support the roof suitable in accordance with approved SCAMP (Strata Control and Monitoring Plan) under Coal Mines Regulation 2017..."
16 Mr. Sharma submits that it is clear that for qualification for performing the tender work in question, the petitioner has to fulfill the eligibility criteria which has been provided in clause 6 of e-tender notice, which reads as under:
"6. Eligibility Criteria with respect to Technical Capability of tender for Continuous Miner -
6.1 The bidders shall be a private, public or government owned legal entity or a combination of them A. The Bidder must be an indigenous manufacturer of Continuous Miner / Similar equipment under Class I Local Supplier as per Order Dt. 16.09.2020 issued by Ministry of Commerce & Industry on Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) OR B. The bidder must have a legally binding agreement with an indigenous manufacturer of Continuous Miner / Similar equipment under Class-1 Local Supplier as per Order Dt. 16.09 2020 issued by Ministry of Commerce & Industry on Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) or his authorized 22 agent / dealer (provided the such authorized agent/dealer has such delegation of power on behalf of the Manufacturer to do so) and the agreement must clearly confirm that the bidder would have all the supports and services from the said organization or his authorized agent/ dealer upto the period/ tenure of the contract and same or similar equipment manufactured by the indigenous manufacturer should be proposed for deployment OR C. The bidder must have produced at least 0.384 (80% of desired annual capacity) million tonne of coal from underground mines in any one production (consecutive 365 days) using Continuous Miner / Similar Equipment with Continuous Cutting Technology during last 7 (Seven) years ending last day of month previous to the one in which bid applications are invited.
The bidder will deploy only newly developed indigenous Equipment manufactured by any Class-1 Local Supplier as per Order D1.16 09.2020 issued by Ministry of Commerce & Industry on Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India)..."
17 It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that from perusal of above clauses of the tender notice which are indispensable clauses and well defined in eligibility criteria, if the authorities reach into conclusion after evaluating the bid submitted by petitioner being Bidder No.3, in the following manner, it cannot be said that decision of the respondent SECL authorities is not lawful within its meaning under the law. The lawfulness of a decision can be questioned on very limited grounds and soundness of decision cannot be questioned otherwise the Courts would be taking over the function of tender issuing authority which it cannot. In support of this contention, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in Singhania Furniture Manufacturing Business Pvt. Ltd. v. State of 23 Chhattisgarh & Others {WPC No. 382/2026, decided on 30.01.2026}. The Ministry of Coal (MoC) in categorical terms has said in its post that it is committed to advancing the Make in India agenda in coal mining sector in line with the Government's vision of Atmnirbhar Bharat, recognizing the manufacturing indigenous manufacturing and self- reliance, the MoC has been collaborating with the stakeholders to implement policies and initiatives that fosters domestic production into innovation. Further, in collaboration with Coal India Limited (CIL), the MoC has initiated several measures to promote new technology development and indigenous manufacturing and support local suppliers and for that purpose, domestic manufacturers are being given opportunity to showcase their capabilities through trial orders at CIL and contribute to the development of coal mining sector Further, under the measures of the Government of India, the Government has mandated preferential purchase policy 'Make in India' guidelines issued by the Department of Promotion of Industries and Internal Trade in all tenders. The said policy grants preference to Class I local suppliers, further incentivizing domestic manufacturing and promoting self-reliance in coal mining sector. Thus, it is clear that the respondent authorities keeping in mind said objective has issued the tender in question with particular terms i.e. 'Newly developed low height indigenous continuous miner / similar equipment, and the petitioner has failed to achieve the said criteria and in this regard when the respondent concerned has reached to the conclusion after considering bid of the petitioner, by holding that "in view of the above, TC (Tender Committee) opines that bidder does not satisfy the requirement of NIT under sub-head of confirmative document and further opined that the bidder ie petitioner, does not meet the requirement of eligibility criteria of Clause No 7.b (7) of NIT under the sub-head of confirmative document i.e. equipment, hence, not to be 24 considered for opening of price bid", cannot be faulted with in the facts and circumstances of the case.
18 Mr. Sharma further submits that the eligibility under Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT is objective, verifiable, and strictly tender-bound, and is not dependent upon post-bid explanations, opinions, or manufacturer clarifications. The said clause expressly mandates deployment of "newly developed indigenous equipment which has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Ltd, other PSUs, or any other mine in India". The condition is inherently binary and allows for no discretion once prior deployment has been established. Pursuant to bid submission, the Technical Evaluation Committee, comprising experts, subject-matter undertook verification of the equipment details furnished by the Petitioner, including the model designation deployment history, and operational records available with SECL. Upon such verification, the Committee found that the Sandvik MC-350 Continuous Miner model had been previously deployed at Haldibari Underground Mine of SECL, prior to issuance of the subject NIT and the equipment quoted by the Petitioner in the present tender was of the same MC-350 model, as declared in the technical bid documents, notwithstanding claims of indigenous manufacture or incremental design changes. A machine or equipment package of the same model already deployed in India cannot be considered newly developed, even if it is newly manufactured, indigenously assembled, or supplied as a fresh unit Any supplementary and cosmetic changes in the same model can not be considered as a new model but may be a variant of the same model. Here the original model of Sandvik Continuous Miner is MC 350 Any additions or alterations as proposed by the OEM in the existing MC 350 model and the engineering hours spent for this additions or alterations can not lead 25 to the conclusion that the machine is a newly developed model Rather it is a variant of the existing model. There may be a number of variants to the existing model of MC 350 depending on the supplementary additions of alterations as per subsequent requirements and those variants developed can not be considered as new models.
19 In light of the above factual position and the binding any post-bid pre-bid clarification, communication from the OEM claiming that the equipment was "newly developed" or "specifically engineered for the subject tender"
was irrelevant for the purposes of eligibility determination, as acceptance of such post-bid assertions would amount to relaxation or modification of essential eligibility conditions after bid submission Any such changes in the eligibility criteria would amount to placing similarly situated prospective bidders at a disadvantage position for those who chose not to participate as their equipment models though indigenously manufactured but already deployed and operating in other mines. This is impermissible in law and contrary to settled principles governing public procurement. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma submits that in the light of submissions made herein above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and this petition deserves to be dismissed in light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Another {(2016) 16 SCC 818}, Director of Education & Others v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Others {(2004) 4 SCC 19}, Silppi Constructions Contractors v.
Union of India & Another {(2020) 16 SCC 489}, Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports & Suppliers v. New J.K.Roadways, Fleet Owers and Transport Contractors and Others {(2021) 16 SCC 808}, Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom & Others {(2022) SCC 362}, Balaji Venturs Pvt. Ltd. v.26
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. & Another {(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1967}.
20 Mr. Paranjpe, placing reliance on the rejoinder filed, submits that the LHCM equipment deployed at Haldibari UG Mine is MC-350 (Imported variant) from Austria whereas the LHCM equipment proposed by the petitioner for the present tender is MC-350 (Indian Variant) having 57.23% local content, rolled out in October 2025 for the first time. Additionally, both the petitioner and its OEM partner furnished their self certification as per clause 7(b)(7) confirming that the proposed LHCM is 'newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine in India". He further submits that by submitting the requisite documents, the petitioner has unequivocally satisfied the prescribed eligibility requirements. The Expert Committee of respondents No. 2 to 4 in its decision dated 11.01.2026 have made an observation in favour of the petitioner. The respondent/SECL has arbitrarily interpreted PIC notification dated 15.03.2024 and letter dated 24.10.2024 as the primary objective and intent of these guidelines is to promote indegenous manufacturing and self reliance in the coal sector and to encourage equipment manufacturers to set up their manufacturing facilities within India. Further, the equipment proposed by the respondent No.5 i.e. CM-3500 is not 'newly developed' as per the interpretation of respondents No. 2 to 4 as applied in the case of petitioner's proposed equipment. 21 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material available on record. 22 This matter came up for hearing on 20.01.2026 when Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted that the grievance of the petitioner may be placed before the Independent 27 Expert Monitor for consideration who may consider the same within a period of one week. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed on 27.01.2026. On the said date, Mr. Singh submitted that the complaint of the petitioner was considered by the Independent Expert Monitor but found no substance in the same and as such, his bids were not opened and the TMC Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd. was declared as L-1. As such, the said firm was directed to be impleaded as party respondent No. 5 and the respondents were directed to proceed with the tender in question and no work order be issued to any party and the matter was directed to be listed on 05.02.2026. On the said date, two week's time was sought for by the petitioner for filing rejoinder and the matter is heard finally today.
23 The principal grievance of the petitioner is directed against the technical evaluation summary dated 09.01.2026 whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner in response to the NIT dated 29.04.2025 was rejected at the technical stage on the ground that the equipment proposed by the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement contained in Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT.
24 From the pleadings of the parties and the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for them, the controversy essentially revolves around the interpretation and application of the condition contained in Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT, which requires that the equipment proposed to be deployed must be "newly developed and must not have been deployed at any mine of Coal India Ltd./other PSUs/any other mine in India." The materials on record would reveal that the petitioner had offered the model MC-350 Continuous Miner manufactured by Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and submitted the requisite confirmatory documents including a self-certification and Local Content 28 Certificate indicating 57.23% local content. However, during the process of technical evaluation, the Tender Committee found that the said model MC-350 had already been deployed at Haldibari Underground Mine of SECL and other mines. In view of the said factual position, the Tender Committee opined that the equipment offered by the petitioner did not satisfy the essential requirement of the NIT that the equipment should be newly developed and must not have been deployed at any mine in India. Consequently, the bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected at the stage of technical evaluation.
25 It is the contention of the petitioner that although the model number MC-
350 may be the same, the equipment proposed by the petitioner is an indigenously developed variant with substantial local content and therefore should be treated as a newly developed equipment within the meaning of Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT. The respondents, on the other hand, have contended that the relevant condition of the NIT focuses on the model of the equipment and once the model MC-350 is already deployed in mines in India, any variant of the same model cannot be treated as newly developed for the purpose of the present trial tender. 26 It is also brought on record that prior to submission of bids, a pre-bid clarification dated 12.07.2025 was uploaded on the tender portal in response to a specific query as to whether a bidder could quote a new machine of the same model if such model had already been developed and supplied in India. The tendering authority categorically clarified that the same model would not be permissible under the tender conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted its bid on 14.07.2025 after the aforesaid clarification had already been published on the tender portal. Once the petitioner participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the tender conditions and the pre-bid clarification, it cannot 29 subsequently turn around and challenge the interpretation adopted by the tendering authority. A bidder who participates in a tender process with full knowledge of the conditions governing the tender cannot thereafter be permitted to question those conditions or their interpretation after being declared unsuccessful.
27 Apart from the above, it is also significant that the petitioner had approached the Independent External Monitors (IEMs) by filing a complaint against the rejection of its bid. The IEMs afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter examined the entire matter. In their opinion dated 11.01.2026 (Annexure R-1), the IEMs found that the decision of the Tender Committee rejecting the bid of the petitioner was consistent with the tender conditions and the pre-bid clarification issued by the respondent authorities. Thus, the decision of the Tender Committee has been independently examined by the IEMs, who have also upheld the interpretation adopted by the respondents. 28 It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts and evaluation of bids is extremely limited. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decisions taken by the tendering authority, particularly when such decisions are based upon technical evaluation carried out by an expert committee. The authority which has floated the tender is the best judge of its requirements and is also best equipped to appreciate the technical specifications, operational requirements, and the feasibility of the equipment or services sought to be procured. The process of technical evaluation often involves assessment of specialized and technical parameters which fall squarely within the domain of subject-matter experts. In such circumstances, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot assume the role of a technical expert so as to substitute its own views for 30 that of the tendering authority.
29 In the present case, the Tender Committee constituted by the respondent authorities comprised technical experts who were entrusted with the task of evaluating whether the equipment offered by the bidders satisfied the conditions stipulated in the NIT. The Committee, upon verification of the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the equipment offered by the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of being a "newly developed" model within the meaning of Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT. Such a determination necessarily involves technical appreciation of the model, its deployment history, and its conformity with the tender conditions. This Court cannot undertake a roving enquiry into such technical aspects or re-evaluate the decision of the expert committee merely because another interpretation is possible. In the present case, the interpretation placed by the respondents on the expression "newly developed" is based upon the specific tender condition as well as the pre-bid clarification which clearly stipulated that equipment of the same model already deployed in mines would not be eligible for the trial tender.
30 The purpose of the present tender, as is evident from the NIT and the policy documents placed on record, was to encourage trial deployment of newly developed indigenous technology which has not yet been deployed in underground coal mines in India. The respondents have taken a conscious policy decision to test unproven or developmental equipment through such trial tenders. If equipment of a model which has already been deployed and proven in Indian mining conditions is permitted to participate in such trial tenders, the very object of the policy would stand defeated. Unless the interpretation adopted by the tendering authority is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or intended to favour a particular bidder, the Court would not interfere with the decision taken by the experts. In 31 the present case, the interpretation placed by the respondents upon the tender condition is not shown to be perverse or actuated by mala fides. On the contrary, the same is consistent with the clarification issued prior to submission of bids and has also been affirmed by the Independent External Monitors. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it would be wholly inappropriate to sit in judgment over the technical assessment carried out by the Tender Committee or to substitute the Court's understanding for that of the experts who are entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating such bids.
31 The contention of the petitioner that the proposed equipment is an indigenously manufactured variant of the earlier model and therefore should be treated as newly developed cannot be accepted in view of the categorical clarification issued by the tendering authority that the same model cannot be quoted even if manufactured subsequently. The further allegation that the respondents relied upon an AI-generated definition of the term "newly developed" also does not advance the case of the petitioner. The material on record would reveal that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was primarily based on the tender conditions, the pre-bid clarification and the factual finding that the model MC-350 had already been deployed at Haldibari Underground Mine. Any reference to AI tools, if at all, was only ancillary and does not form the basis of the decision. Further, the allegation of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis the technically qualified bidder i.e. the respondent No. 5 is also without substance. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality in the decision of the Tender Committee rejecting the bid of the petitioner.
32 In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the owner or the employer of a project having authored the 32 tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents.
33 In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain {(2022) 6 SCC 127}, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder.
23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work."
34 The Apex Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024, decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the decisions rendered in various other celebrated judgments, observed as under:
33
"21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the government/ its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner.
22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial intervention in Government Contracts.
23. In Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and Others1, this Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts held: -
"18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the "decision making process". In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was said that: (p. 144a) "The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court."
By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly examine whether "decision-making 1 (1993) 1 SCC 445 34 process" was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India 2, this Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action.
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere.
However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles."
25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others3, as under: -
"53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good 2 (1994) 6 SCC 651 3 (2004) 3 SCC 553 35 and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution."
26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others 4, this Court after discussing number of judgments laid down two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters. They are: -
"22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say:
"the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;"
(ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others5, while observing that the government contracts granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: -
"50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in government contracts, if granted by the government bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest."
28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsels for the Respondents relying upon the observations made in 4 (2007) 14 SCC 517 5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574 36 Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others6, that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. However, in the said judgment also it is observed that if the employer has exercised the inherent authority to deviate from the essential term, such deviation has to be made applicable to all the bidders and potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as under:-
"47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision "that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached" as held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216].
48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot."
6 (2016) 8 SCC 622 37 35 The decision impugned in the present writ petition is based upon technical evaluation carried out by an expert body and is consistent with the tender conditions and the clarifications issued prior to submission of bids. Interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would amount to substituting the Court's view for that of the tendering authority, which is impermissible in law. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 36 Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 37 No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2026.03.16
18:25:56
+0530
38
Head Note
The owner/employer of a project, being the author of the tender documents, is best placed to understand the requirements of the project and to interpret the terms and conditions contained therein. In matters relating to interpretation of tender conditions and evaluation of bids, Courts ought to exercise restraint and should not substitute their own interpretation in place of that adopted by the owner/employer, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions.