Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. vs Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

9 September 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 11726 of 2025

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi

Citation

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 528 : 2025 INSC 1085

Issue for consideration

Issue arose whether the decision of the High Court to uphold the appellant-bidder’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) for not furnishing Joint Venture agreement justified; and whether the appellant would have stood disqualified since its washeries had been exclusively committed to the State Mining Corporation.

Headnote

Tender – Notice inviting tender – Clause (5)D and Clause (5)B – Disqualification – 1st respondent invited Tender for coal beneficiation and managing logistics for Thermal Power Project – Appellant and others submitted their bid – However, the appellant-bidder was disqualified during technical evaluation by the Committee due to non-submission of credentials as per Clause No.(5)D of the NIT-non-filing of Joint Venture agreement – Decision of the Committee challenged by the appellant – High Court upheld the disqualification of the appellant by the Committee for non-compliance of Clause 5(D) of the NIT and also held that even if the JV agreement had been submitted, the appellant would have stood disqualified since its washeries had been exclusively committed to the State Mining Corporation – Correctness:

Held: 1st respondent acted contrary to the terms of the NIT and unfairly rejected the appellant’s bid for non-production of JV agreement although Clause 5(D) did not prescribe production of such agreement as mandatory to rely on past-experience of such consortium in which the bidder had a defined proportionate share – Decision of the Committee, upheld by the High Court as per Clause 5(D) liable to be set aside – Issue as regards washery capacity is a contentious one and ought not to have been decided by the High Court without giving opportunity to the appellant to controvert the same – High Court also lost sight of the fact that the Committee had not adverted to this issue and it was impermissible for it to travel beyond the reasons given by the Committee and disqualify the appellant – Allotment of work order to 2nd respondent has been made subject to the outcome of this proceeding – Matter remand for a fresh consideration whether appellant had requisite spare washing capacity as per Clause 5(B) of the NIT and the validity of the work order in favour of the 2nd respondent in light of such decision – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 20, 21, 24-26]

Judgment 1. Leave granted. Factual Matrix 2. In response to Notice Inviting Tender1 dated 17.05.2024, issued by the 1st respondent for the purpose of run-of-mine (ROM) coal beneficiation and managing logistics from Western Coalfields Ltd.2 (Nagpur area) sources for Shree Singaji Thermal Power Project, Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh), the appellant and two others, namely the 2nd respondent3 and one M/s NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had submitted their bid. 3. As NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. could not furnish earnest money deposit, only the appellant and the 2nd respondent remained in the fray.

View Subscription Plans →