[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Singh Construction Co. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62675
1 WP-45232-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 45232 of 2025
DILIP SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri H.S. Ruprah - Additional Advocate General with Shri Akash Malpani - Advocate for
the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1. Petitioner impugns the NIT advertisement dated 03.11.2025 and detailed
NIT dated 05.11.2025. The contention of the petitioner is that the certain
conditions have been imposed in the tender document for the first time requiring
the bidders to own certain machineries. He submits that there are several
machineries mentioned require for completion of work however for certain
expensive machineries there is a requirement that the same should be owned by
the bidders. He submits that the tender is valued at less than 20 crores and the
cost of the machineries is about 2 crores.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is no stipulation
for contracts where value is less than 2 crores and such a stipulation has been
incorporated in contracts where the value is exceeding 2 crores. He submits that
keeping in view the past experience of certain contracts being abandoned and not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62675
2 WP-45232-2025
being successfully performed by the bidders, the said condition has been imposed.
3. Paragraph 4 of the reply which gives the justification for mandating
ownership of certain machineries reads as under;
''4. That, the answering respondents most respectfully submits that the
reasons for compulsory requirements for four equipments i.e Steel Wheel-
Static/Vibratory Roller, Motor Grader , Black Hoe, i.e. mentioned in Annexure -1
(Format 1-5 ) (A), (B), (C) and also (D) Earth Compactor are as follows:
a) That, it was noted by the department that many
contractors were not able to complete the road construction work
allotted to them within the timeframe due to lack of ownership of
the above-mentioned basic four equipments used in road construction.
b) That, it was also noted that many contractors completed the work
but they did not do it in the stipulated time frame, and it was also noted
that the quality of construction was sub- standard.
c) That, many a times the contractors are not able to
procure enough machines on lease due to their non-availability.
d)That, it is also noted that as the construction of road works
are majorly carried out in the non-rainy seasons which results
in struggle amongst the contractors to lease the required equipments on
time.
e)That, many a times the contractors were not able to pay the
- lease rent of the leased equipments due to which the owners took away
the leased equipments which resulted into complete halt of road
construction works or delayed completion of works.
f) That, it was also noted that the contractors had no control
over the rented/leased equipments.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62675
3 WP-45232-2025
g)That, it was noted that public money was wasted in case of
re- tendering of the construction works.
h) That, the rural roads are mostly affected where it has
been noted that contractors who do not own basic equipments
take tenders and are not able to complete the construction work
in stipulated time frame.
i) That, the process of re-tender of the incomplete work in
remote rural areas leads to further difficulties where in-spite of floating
fresh tenders contractors are not participating in the tender process.
J) That, due to non completion of road work or delay therein great
inconvenience is caused to public at large."
4. As per the reply, it is stated that in view of the above noted compelling
circumstances the pre qualification has been prescribed to have at least one
machine of steel Wheel Static/Vibrator Roller, Motor Grader, Black Hoe, Earth
Compactor (small) to be owned so that the road constructions work can be
completed within the stipulated time as expeditiously as possible and also with
high standered quality as per the specification.
5. Reference may be had to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Michigan Rubber India Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216, Airport
Authority of India Vs. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research (CAPSR)
& Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine 1334, wherein it is held that the bid inviting authority is
the master of determining the terms and conditions of the contract and the Court
would not substitute its view merely on the ground that the Court feels some
other condition is more beneficial.
6. We may note that the respondents have not imposed a general condition
excluding all contracts however, only in contracts where the value exceeds 2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62675
4 WP-45232-2025
crores such a condition has been imposed and all the bidders who do not own these
machineries can always participate in tenders where the estimated work value
does not exceed 2 crores.
7. In view of the above, we are of the view that rationale given by the
respondents in prescribing the mandatory condition of owning certain equipments
is plausible and does not warrant any interreference.
8. Since the petitioner admittedly does not own the said equipment, he is not
qualified to participate in the subject tender.
9. Consequently, we find no merit in the petition, the petition is accordingly
dismissed.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Akm
