Vidya Caterers vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM020297012026
2026:BHC-OS:22146-DB
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
SALUNKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.29700 OF 2026
M/s Vidya Caterers } Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. S. C. Naidu a/w Adv. Sean Wassoodew,
Adv.Ashna Shah for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w Ms Shubhra
Swami, Mr.R. V. Pawar, Mr. Amol Bavare,
Mr. Krishna Sarkate i/by Pragnya Legal for
Respondents.
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
th
RESERVED ON: 30 SEPTEMBER, 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 9 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT: (Per Chief Justice)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, Heard finally.
2. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred, inter alia ,
seeking the following substantive reliefs: -
“a. That a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction be issued to Respondents 1 to 3 calling for the records and
proceedings relating to GeM Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7565032/CRFQ
No. 1000456762 for outsourcing canteen services at BPCL Mumbai
Refinery and, after going into the legality and validity thereof, quash
and set aside the technical disqualification/rejection of the Petitioner’s
th
bid and the decision communicated by Respondent No. 2 on 24
August 2026;
1
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
b. That Respondents 1 to 3 be ordered and directed to
evaluate/re-evaluate the Petitioner’s technical bid strictly in
accordance with Clause 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 of the BQC read with
th
Corrigendum No. 1 dated 8 June 2026 and, upon the Petitioner
satisfying the said criteria, treat the Petitioner as a qualified bidder
and consider/open its financial bid;
c. That Respondents 1 to 3 be restrained from applying the
formula of dividing the total value of a multi-year Purchase
Order/Work by its total contractual tenure where such formula is not
stipulated in the tender and is contrary to Corrigendum No. 1”
Factual Matrix :-
3. The Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of
institutional, industrial and other catering and hospitality
services. Respondent No. 1-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(“ BPC” ’ for short) is a Government of India Enterprise. It floated an
open tender for “Outsourcing of Canteen Services at Mumbai
Refinery” for the period of three years vide GeM Bid
No.GEM/2026/B/7565032 and CRFQ No. 1000456762. The
tender was two-bid tender comprising Bid Qualification Criteria
(“ BQC” for short) and Price Bid. For properly appreciating the
controversy, we reproduce the relevant clauses of the BQC, which
read as under: -
1.2 Technical Criteria (Service):
The Bidder must have successfully executed /complete at least.
Criteria Requirement
(General) Rs. in
Lakh
Requirement
(MSE) Rs. in
Lakh
One Purchase Order/Work of Rs. 2069 L Rs. 1758 L
annualized basic value
OR
2
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
Two Purchase Order/Work of Rs. 1724 L Rs. 1465 L
annualized basic value
Three Purchase Order/Work of Rs. 1379 L Rs. 1172 L
annualized basic value
…..
1.4 Documentary evidence required for 1.2:
Copies of contracts/work orders and documentary evidence of
successful execution/completion in support of Past Experience of
Similar Services along with name, address and contact details of clients
shall be uploaded with the bid for verification.
Sub-Contractor Clause :
A job executed and completed by a bidder as a Sub-contractor shall be
considered for the purpose of meeting the experience criteria of BQC
subject to submission of following documents in support of meeting the “
Bidder Qualification Criteria:
. Copy of work order along with SOR issued by main Contractor.
. Copies of Completion Certificate(s) from the main Contractor.
. In addition, copies of Completion Certificate(s) from the end
user/Owner/Project.
. Management Consultant (PMC) mentioning that the work has
been executed by bidder as a sub-contractor or a copy of approval
by end User/Owner for engaging the bidder as Subcontractor.
. The Completion Certificate shall have details like work order no,
date, brief scope of work, ordered & executed value of the job,
completion date etc., as required for qualification of the bidder in
line with BQC.
1.5 Financial Criteria:
Criteria Requirement
The minimum average annual financial turnover
of the bidder during the last three years, ending
st
on 31 March of the previous financial year
Rs. 1030 Lakh
Net worth should be Positive as per latest audited financial statement
1.6 Note to Bidders:
S.No. Clause Title Simplified Description
1 JV/Consortium Bids from Joint Ventures or Consortium
are not allowed.
2 Parent-Subsidiary
Experience meeting
Technical Criteria
If a subsidiary uses parent company’s
experience (or vice versa), a parental
guarantee must be submitted. Bidder
must meet financial and PPMII criteria.
3 Past Experience Jobs awarded more than (7) years ago are
Timeline acceptable only if completed within (7)
years from the original bid due date.
4 Foreign Job For jobs executed abroad, only basic
Evaluation value is considered. INR conversion based
3
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
on SBI TT selling rate on work order issue
date.
5 Document Submit complete documents (PO,
Submission Contract, Completion Certificate etc.) in
the first instance. No changes allowed
after bid submission.
6 Shortfall Documents Bidders are allowed to submit only
supporting documents for clarification
against already submitted qualifying
documents/work orders.
Bidders shall not be permitted to
submit new qualifying
documents(document related to new
reference of work experience/work
orders). Such submission shall not be
considered for evaluation.
Submit audited financials (Balance Sheet,
P&L, ITR) for last three financial years
ends or as followed by bidder. In case the
financial year closing date is within 6
months of original bid due date and
Audited annual report of immediate
preceding financial year is not available,
Bidder has the option to submit the
financial details of the three previous
years immediately prior to the last
financial year.
- In case the financial year closing date is
within 6 – 9 months of original bid due
date and Audited annual report of
immediate preceding financial year is not
available, Bidder has the option to submit
the financial details of the three previous
years immediately prior to the last
financial year provided Bidder submits a
letter from CA stating the reasons of non-
preparation/furnishing of the latest year’s
Audited Financial Statements.
- In case, the financial year closing date is
beyond 9 months of original bid due date,
it is compulsory to submit the financial
details of the immediate three preceding
financial years.
8 TPIA Verification BQC documents must be verified by
NABCB – accredited TPIA. Alternatively,
submit Annex-1 undertaking to provide
TPIA docs if declared L1. Refusal leads to
bid rejection.
9. Reuse of Verified Already approved TPIA – verified
Documents documents for other jobs can be reused if
unchanged and meet current BQC.
7 Financial Documents
4
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
4. In the pre-bid meeting, queries were raised concerning
Clause 1.2. Respondent No. 1, thereafter issued Corrigendum No.1
th
dated 8 June 2026, which reads as under: -
CORRIGENDUM NO. 1 – Minutes of Pre-bid Meeting
CRFQ NO. 1000456762/GEM ID:GEM/2026/B/7565032
This refers to queries raised by various bidders during Pre-bid Meeting and subsequent response.
Tender Title: “OUTSOURCING CANTEEN SERVICES FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS” AT BPCL MUMBAI REFINERY
Corrigendum No. 1 Date : 08.06.2026
SL
NO
.
Clause/
Article Bidder’s query BPCL’s repose
No/Page No.
Reference
Document
Bidder to submit PO copy and corresponding satisfactory
Work Completion Certificate (from client stating period of
execution with date and value of executed job in that period)
for each unique job of minimum 12 months duration without
any break in service. POs with corresponding Work
Completion Certificates of individual years for a multi-year
contract may be considered.
Criteria Requirement
Requirement
(General)
(MSE)
Rs in Lakh
Rs. in Lakh
One Purchase
Order/Work of
annualized basic
value:
Rs. 2069L Rs. 1758 L
Only such POs and jobs without price escalation shall be
considered.
Example:
A MSE vendor has a contract of value 40 Crore for 3-years
and has submitted the following:
OR
BQC
(Technical
Criteria
(Service))
Two Purchase
Order/Work of
annualized basic
value:
Page
13/Point 1.2
1.
Rs. 1724 L Rs. 1465 L
Year 1: Work Completion certificate for 12 crore.
Year 2: Work Completion certificate for 13 crore.
Year 3: Running.
OR
The PO and Work Completion certificate only for Year 2
shall be considered (whichever is higher).
Three Purchase
Order/Work of
annualized basic
value
Rs. 1379 L Rs. 1172 L
Vendor shall have to submit PO copies and Work Completion
certificates of 2 more unique jobs. Copies of contracts / work
orders and documentary evidence of successful
execution/completion in support of Past Experience of
Similar Services along with names, address and contact
details of clients shall be uploaded with the bid for
verification.
Would CPI based manpower rate escalation be No. CPI based rate escalation would not be applicable for
2. Priced Bid BoQ
extended to vendor? this tender.
BoQ (Item
300 and 310
– for all 03
years)
Requirement for Manpower items (Item 300 and 310 Manpower based 02 items are on-demand basis, like during
– for all 03 years) shutdown or turnaround activities.
3. Priced Bid
Scope of Page Estimate for the amount/quantity of crockery/cutlery Identification and assessment of the quantity of cutlery to be
4.
Work 25/Point 5 required for catering. supplied by the vendor shall be in vendor's scope.
In lieu of security deposit towards performance,
Bidder shall submit bank guarantee (PBG) of
equivalent amount of retention money (5% of
contract value) before submission of 1st RA bill,
valid for defects liability period of twelve months
with further claim period of six months. Such BG can
be for 5% of the contract value for the performance
guarantee period, upfront, or for 5% of each running
bill valid for the performance guarantee period.
The deduction of 5% value from each running bill shall not
be applicable.
Security
Deposit
Towards
Performance:
Page 63/Para
2
5.
Bidder to submit upfront PBG of 5% contract value with
correct validity period as applicable.
All other terms and conditions of tender shall remain the same. Bid due date for the tender remains unchanged.
5. The Petitioner submitted its bid as an eligible Micro and
Small Enterprise ( “MSE” for short) along with requisite statutory,
financial and technical documents. The Petitioner submitted three
5
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
separate Public Sector Undertaking ( “ PSU ” for short) catering
credentials in support of Clause 1.2 viz. (I) Mangalore Refinery and
Petrochemicals Limited (“ MRPL” for short) Work Order No.
4200006357-0; (ii) MRPL Work Order No. 4200008450-0; and (iii)
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. ( “BEML” for short) Purchase Order No.
5900039214. The first MRPL credential was Work Order No.
th
4200006357-0 dated 15 August 2018 for running of a round the
clock industrial canteen.
th th
6. The contract period was from 9 January 2019 to 8
January 2021 i.e. 24 months. The MRPL documentation certified
successful completion and satisfactory performance. The
completion record shows execution approximately of Rs. 8.14
crores in the first year and approximately 12.25 crores in the
second year. The second MRPL credential was Work Order No.
th th
4200008450-0 dated 4 April 2022 for the period 27 April 2022
th th
to 26 April 2024. The MRPL completion certificate dated 8 July
2024 records a Work Order value of Rs. 18,94,04,306/-. The third
rd
credential was BEML Purchase Order No. 5900039214 dated 3
September 2021 for completed value of Rs. 25,51,81,041.60.
7. The Petitioner’s technical bid was thereafter
shown/communicated as rejected with a generic remark stating
that Bidder is found to not meet the BQC criteria.
6
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
Submissions of the Petitioner :-
8. Mr. Naidu, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would
submit that in an arbitrary manner, the Petitioner’s technical bid
was rejected. He would submit that consequently, the Petitioner
st
made a detailed representation dated 21 August 2026 to the
Respondents pointing out that the Petitioner fulfilled the
applicable BQC on the basis of the annualized values stated in its
qualifying credentials. He submits that at no point of time, the
Respondents have disclosed the basis upon which those
th
credentials were being disregarded. Only on 24 August 2026,
through an email, the Respondent No. 2 for the first time disclosed
the actual methodology adopted by them.
9. According to Mr. Naidu, the Respondents treated the first
MRPL contract as a two year contract of Rs. 20.39 crores and
divided the same by two to arrive at Rs. 10.195 crores. They
treated the second MRPL contract as a two year contract of
Rs.25.32 crores and divided the same by two to arrive at Rs. 12.66
crores and treated the BEML contract as a three year contract of
Rs. 25.51 crores and divided the same by three to arrive at
approximately Rs. 8.50 crores. The Respondents concluded that
only the second MRPL credential met the threshold of Rs. 11.72
crores and that the other two credentials did not. He would submit
7
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
that the formula adopted by the Respondents is contrary to Clause
1.2. No such formula finds place in Clause 1.2 or elsewhere in the
BQC.
10. Mr. Naidu would submit that the formula sought to be
applied by the Respondents is directly contrary to Corrigendum
No. 1, which expressly permits Work Completion Certificates
( “WCC” for short) of individual years of a multi-year contract and
whose own worked example selects the higher annual execution
period rather then dividing the total contract value by the tenure.
11. Mr. Naidu would contend that a meeting was held at BPCL
th
premises on 24 August 2026 at which the Respondents’ stand
and the Petitioner’s objections were discussed. The Petitioner
maintained that it was not seeking any relaxation or dilution of Rs.
11.72 crores threshold but only application of the BQC and
Corrigendum in the manner in which they had been published and
represented to the bidders. It is submitted that there is a material
distinction between an arithmetical average and actual annual
execution. The Respondents cannot prescribe one criterion in the
tender and apply another at the stage of evaluation. It is submitted
that having received no redress from the Respondent No. 1, the
th
Petitioner, on 25 August 2026 also addressed a detailed
representation to the Independent External Monitors ( “IEMs” for
8
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
short) appointed in relation to the tender, invoking the
independent review mechanism.
12. Mr. Naidu would next submit that despite the urgency
expressly pointed out in the said representation, no response has
been received from the IEMs until date. Mr. Naidu would submit
that Clause 1.2 is ambiguous. It fails to specify whether the
monetary threshold applies to each work, work of an individual or
as an aggregate across works. Clause 1.2 uses the expression
“annualised basis value” and explicitly omits the word “average”.
13. Mr. Naidu would then contend that the operative provision of
the Corrigendum expressly permits the consideration of Purchase
Orders with corresponding WCCs of individual years for a multi-
year contract. It applied broadly to multi-year contracts without
restricting the rule to running contracts. The Corrigendum
explains that job must have minimum duration of 12 months
without break and further says Purchase Orders with
corresponding WCCs of individual years for a multi-year contract
may be considered. The example is illustrative. An illustration
cannot limit or narrow down the operative provision. The
illustration gives an actual example of Rs. 40 crores/three year
contract with reference to three year running. The example is
purely illustrative and cannot restrict or alter the unqualified
9
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
operative rule. Under the Corrigendum’s framework, if
documentary evidence proves a specific executed amount in a
completed year, the relevant higher executed year’s value is taken
as the qualifying value, rather than an arithmetical average.
14. In Mr. Naidu’s submission, vide a formal pre-bid clarification
issued to all bidders, the Corrigendum forms an integral part of
the BQC and binds the BPCL to evaluate bids strictly according to
its published terms. The BPCL cannot, post-bid, adopt a formula
that derives an arithmetical average, especially after issuing an
authoritative Corrigendum establishing how multi-year contracts
and individual-year WCC would be considered.
15. According to Mr. Naidu, the operative portion does not
mention ongoing multi-year or running contract. It does not state
that in case of completed contract, average of Purchase Orders will
be considered for multi-year contract. The illustration considers a
hypothetical Purchase Order wherein third year is running. The
said illustration cannot be considered as a clarification to Clause
1.2. The illustration is, infact, contrary to the introductory part of
Clause 1.2. It is submitted that the Petitioner is having a long
lasting experience in industrial catering for Government Purchase
Orders, and its arbitrary exclusion from bid is contrary to public
interest.
10
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
16. Mr. Naidu would urge that in light of the above, the Petition
be allowed and Rule be made Absolute.
Submissions of the Respondents :
17. Per contra, Mr. Sakhardande, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondents would submit that the
tender document prescribed a detailed procedure. Every bidder
was required to satisfy the BQC. The BQC prescribed the requisite
past experience of a bidder. The BQC provided three alternative
routes by which a bidder could satisfy the requisite experience
criterion. One Purchase Order/Work having an annualized basic
value of at least Rs. 1758 lakhs, or two Purchase Orders/Works
each having an annualized basic value of at least Rs. 1465 lakhs
or three Purchase Orders/Works each having an annualized basic
value of at least Rs. 1172 lakhs.
18. According to Mr. Sakhardande, in the instant case, having
regard to Clause 1.2 and Clause 1.4 of the tender conditions, a
MSE bidder seeking to qualify under the third alternative was
required to demonstrate three successfully executed/completed
Purchase Orders/Works each having an annualized basic value of
not less than Rs. 11.72 crores. The BQC further required the
bidder to furnish all relevant Purchase Orders/Work
Orders/Contracts together with documentary evidence of
11
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
successful execution/completion in support of the experience
relied upon.
st
19. Mr. Sakhardande would then submit that on 1 June 2026,
a pre-bid meeting was held. In the said meeting, the Petitioner
raised queries with regard to the technical criteria prescribed
under the BQC, particularly in relation to the manner in which the
said criteria was to be applied in case of ongoing or in-progress
th
multi-year contracts. He would contend that, thereafter, on 8
June 2026, the said Corrigendum was issued setting out its
responses and clarifications to the queries raised by the bidders
during the pre-bid meeting. The Corrigendum specifically clarified
the manner in which an ongoing/running multi-year contract was
to be considered for the purpose of assessing compliance with the
BQC.
20. Mr. Sakhardande relied upon the Additional Affidavit-in-
Reply filed on behalf of the Respondents and submits that
pursuant to the said tender, the Respondent No. 1 received total 8
number of bids. Out of the 8 bidders, 3 bidders were disqualified
in the BQC evaluation while the remaining 5 bidders were found to
qualify. Among the 3 disqualified bidders, 1 bidder did not submit
relevant WCC of the Purchase Orders, while the other two bidders,
including the Petitioner submitted Purchase Order documents
12
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
which did not meet the required threshold value and hence were
rejected/disqualified.
21. It is further submitted that out of the 5 qualified bidders, 2
bidders submitted concluded contract documents in terms of
Clause 1.2 of the BQC, while the remaining 3 bidders submitted
documents in relation to ongoing contracts in terms of the
Corrigendum. The price bids submitted by the above 5 number of
bidders were thereafter scrutinized by Respondent No. 1 and after
having scrutinized the price bids, it is in the process of awarding
the tender to the L-1 bidder. L-1 bidder is qualified based on
concluded contracts submitted by it as is evident from the
following chart:
Document
reference: IN-
UP986948560774
00W
Particular Document
reference: MRPL
WO JCD2022B54
Document
reference: WO:
IN-
PB838372694118
19V
Contract Period 24 Months 36 Months 24 Months
Contract Status Concluded Concluded Concluded
Contract Rs. 26.838 Cr. Rs. 40.46 Cr. Rs. 33.22 Cr.
execution details
Annualized Value Rs. 13.42 Cr. 13.48 Cr. Rs. 16.61 Cr.
Considered
Applicable MSE
threshold as per
BQC (Three
orders)
Rs. 11.72 Cr. Rs. 11.72 Cr.
Rs. 11.72 Cr.
Inference Submitted
credentials meet the
annualized
threshold PO value
as per BQC Criteria
Submitted
credentials meet
the annualized
threshold PO
value as per BQC
Criteria
Submitted
credentials meet
the annualized
threshold PO
value as per BQC
Criteria
13
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
The BQC evaluation was performed by the Respondent No. 1
accordingly. The question of referring to the Corrigendum therefore
did not arise for the selection of L-1 bidder.
22. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sakhardande
relied upon the Judgment of Apex Court in Agmatel India
1
Private Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom and Ors. . This, to
submit that the authority that authors the tender document is the
best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and
thus its interpretation should not be second guessed by a Court,
in judicial review proceedings.
23. In light of all the above submissions, Mr. Sakhardande would
urge that the Petition is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed.
Findings and Conclusion :
24. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with
their assistance, perused the record.
25. At the outset, in respect of interpretation of tender
document, what we find is that the scope of judicial review in
contractual matters is very limited. Particularly in relation to the
process of interpretation of tender document, it has been the
subject matter of discussion in various decisions of the Apex
Court. However, we would like to consider the Judgment of Apex
1 (2022) 5 SCC 362
14
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies vs. New J. K. Roadways,
2
Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors , wherein the Apex
Court has considered the decision in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.
3
vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and the Apex Court
has disapproved the interference by the High Court with the
interpretation by the tender inviting authority.
26. In Agmatel India Private Limited (supra), the Apex Court
held as under: -
24. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters, and
particularly in relation to the process of interpretation of tender
document, has been the subject-matter of discussion in various
decisions of this Court. We need not multiply the authorities on the
subject, as suffice it would be refer to the three-Judge Bench decision
of this Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies [ Galaxy Transport
Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport
Contractors , (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035]
wherein, among others, the said decision in Afcons Infrastructure
[ Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. , (2016) 16
SCC 818] has also been considered; and this Court has disapproved
the interference by the High Court in the interpretation by the tender
inviting authority of the eligibility term relating to the category of
vehicles required to be held by the bidders, in the tender floated for
supply of vehicles for the carriage of troops and equipment.
25. This Court referred to various decisions on the subject and stated
the legal principles as follows : ( Galaxy Transport Agencies case
[ Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners &
Transport Contractors , (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC
1035] , SCC paras 14-20)
“ 14 . In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the
authority that authors the tender document is the best
person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and
thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a
court in judicial review proceedings . In Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [ Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v.
Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. , (2016) 16 SCC 818] , this Court
held : (SCC p. 825, para 15)
2 (2021) 16 SCC 808
3 (2016) 16 SCC 818
15
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
‘ 15 . We may add that the owner or the employer of a project,
having authored the tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its
documents . The constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless
there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender
conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a
project may give an interpretation to the tender documents
that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that
by itself is not a reason for interfering with the
interpretation given .’
15 . In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev
Prabha [ Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha , (2020) 16
SCC 759] , under the heading “ Deference to authority's
interpretation ”, this Court stated : (SCC p. 776, paras 50-52)
‘ 50 . Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another
fundamental problem. It is obvious that Respondent 1 seeks to
only enforce terms of NIT. Inherent in such exercise is
interpretation of contractual terms. However, it must be noted
that judicial interpretation of contracts in the sphere of commerce
stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting statutes .
51 . In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and C1-India have
laid recourse to clauses of NIT, whether it be to justify
condonation of delay of Respondent 6 in submitting performance
bank guarantees or their decision to resume auction on grounds
of technical failure. BCCL having authored these documents, is
better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them .
[ Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. , (2016)
16 SCC 818]
52 . The High Court ought to have deferred to this understanding,
unless it was patently perverse or mala fide. Given how BCCL's
interpretation of these clauses was plausible and not absurd,
solely differences in opinion of contractual interpretation ought
not to have been grounds for the High Court to come to a finding
that the appellant committed illegality.’
1 6 . Further, in the recent judgment in Silppi Constructions
Contractors v. Union of India [ Silppi Constructions Contractors v.
Union of India , (2020) 16 SCC 489] , this Court held as follows :
(SCC pp. 501-02, para 20)
‘ 20 . The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to
above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the
courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the
decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not
sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court
must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best
16
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference
should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or
tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge
as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two
interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author
must be accepted . The courts will only interfere to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With
this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.’
17 . In accordance with these judgments and noting that the
interpretation of the tendering authority in this case cannot be
said to be a perverse one, the Division Bench ought not to have
interfered with it by giving its own interpretation and not giving
proper credence to the word “both” appearing in Condition No. 31
of the NIT For this reason, the Division Bench's conclusion [ New
JK Roadways v. State (UT of J&K) , 2020 SCC OnLine J&K 733]
that JK Roadways was wrongly declared to be ineligible, is set
aside.
18 . Insofar as Condition No. 27 of the NIT prescribing work
experience of at least 5 years of not less than the value of Rs 2
crores is concerned, suffice it to say that the expert body, being
the Tender Opening Committee, consisting of four members,
clearly found that this eligibility condition had been satisfied by
the appellant before us. Without therefore going into the
assessment of the documents that have been supplied to
this Court, it is well settled that unless arbitrariness or
mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is alleged,
the expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly
when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be second-
guessed by a writ court . Thus, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa [ Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa , (2007) 14 SCC 517] ,
this Court noted : (SCC pp. 531-32, para 22)
‘ 22 . Judicial review of administrative action is intended to
prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and
mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is
made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is
“sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters
relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features
should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction.
Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially
commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay
at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona
fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of
judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in
assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of
judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private
interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual
disputes . The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always
seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful
tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and
business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and
17
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial
review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or
final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and
succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project
cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should
pose to itself the following questions:
( 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.’
19 . Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. [ Montecarlo Ltd. v.
NTPC Ltd. , (2016) 15 SCC 272] , this Court stated as follows :
(SCC p. 288, para 26)
‘ 26 . We respectfully concur with the aforesaid statement of law.
We have reasons to do so. In the present scenario, tenders are
floated and offers are invited for highly complex technical
subjects. It requires understanding and appreciation of the
nature of work and the purpose it is going to serve. It is common
knowledge in the competitive commercial field that technical bids
pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are scrutinised by the
technical experts and sometimes third-party assistance from
those unconnected with the owner's organisation is taken. This
ensures objectivity. Bidder's expertise and technical capability
and capacity must be assessed by the experts. In the matters of
financial assessment, consultants are appointed. It is because to
check and ascertain that technical ability and the financial
feasibility have sanguinity and are workable and realistic. There
is a multi-prong complex approach; highly technical in nature.
The tenders where public largesse is put to auction stand on a
different compartment. Tender with which we are concerned, is
not comparable to any scheme for allotment. This arena which
we have referred requires technical expertise. Parameters applied
are different. Its aim is to achieve high degree of perfection in
execution and adherence to the time schedule. But, that does not
mean, these tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review.
Exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if the
approach is arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant
18
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
to favour one. The decision-making process should clearly show
that the said maladies are kept at bay. But where a decision is
taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of
the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the
tender is floated, the Court should follow the principle of
restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the Court
would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan
and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in
other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and
appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and
projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to
carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play
in the joints.’
20 . This being the case, we are unable to fathom how the
Division Bench, on its own appraisal, arrived at the conclusion
that the appellant held work experience of only 1 year,
substituting the appraisal of the expert four-member Tender
Opening Committee with its own.”
26. The abovementioned statements of law make it amply clear that
the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation
is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender
document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would
prefer to keep restraint. Further to that, the technical evaluation or
comparison by the Court is impermissible; and even if the
interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting
offers is not as such acceptable to the constitutional court, that, by
itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation
given.
27. In Galaxy Transport Agencies (supra), the Apex Court held
as under: -
“14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority
that authors the tender document is the best person to understand
and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should
not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. In
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC
818] , this Court held : (SCC p. 825, para 15)
“15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project,
having authored the tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its
documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless
there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender
19
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project
may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not
acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a
reason for interfering with the interpretation given.”
15. In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha
[Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759] ,
under the heading “Deference to authority's interpretation”, this Court
stated : (SCC p. 776, paras 50-52)
“50. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another
fundamental problem. It is obvious that Respondent 1 seeks to
only enforce terms of the NIT. Inherent in such exercise is
interpretation of contractual terms. However, it must be noted
that judicial interpretation of contracts in the sphere of commerce
stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting statutes.
51. In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and C1-India have
laid recourse to clauses of the NIT, whether it be to justify
condonation of delay of Respondent 6 in submitting performance
bank guarantees or their decision to resume auction on grounds
of technical failure. BCCL having authored these documents, is
better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them.
(Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.
[Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.,
(2016) 16 SCC 818] , SCC para 15)
52. The High Court [Amr-Dev Prabha v. Union of India, 2018 SCC
OnLine Jhar 2708] ought to have deferred to this understanding,
unless it was patently perverse or mala fide. Given how BCCL's
interpretation of these clauses was plausible and not absurd,
solely differences in opinion of contractual interpretation ought
not to have been grounds for the High Court to come to a finding
that the appellant committed illegality.”
16. Further, in the recent judgment in Silppi Constructions Contractors
v. Union of India [Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India,
(2020) 16 SCC 489] , this Court held as follows : (SCC pp. 502-503,
para 20)
“20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred
to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the
courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the
decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit
like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court
must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best
judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference
should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or
tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge
as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two
interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author
must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent
20
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With
this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.”
17. In accordance with these judgments and noting that the
interpretation of the tendering authority in this case cannot be said to
be a perverse one, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with
it by giving its own interpretation and not giving proper credence to the
word “both” appearing in Condition 31 of the NIT. For this reason, the
Division Bench's [New J.K. Roadways v. State (UT of J&K), 2020 SCC
OnLine J&K 733] conclusion that J.K. Roadways was wrongly
declared to be ineligible, is set aside.
18. Insofar as Condition 27 of the NIT prescribing work experience of
at least 5 years of not less than the value of Rs 2 crores is concerned,
suffice it to say that the expert body, being the Tender Opening
Committee, consisting of four members, clearly found that this
eligibility condition had been satisfied by the appellant before us.
Without therefore going into the assessment of the documents that
have been supplied to this Court, it is well settled that unless
arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering authority is
alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when
it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be second-guessed by a writ
court. Thus, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] , this Court noted : (SCC pp. 531-
32, para 22)
“22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to
prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and
mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is
made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is
“sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters
relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features
should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction.
Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially
commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice
stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is
bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of
power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration
or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out.
The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked
to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to
decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a
grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by
unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded
pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of
some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self,
and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial
review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or
final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and
succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project
cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review,
should pose to itself the following questions:
21
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
(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.”
19. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC [Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC,
(2016) 15 SCC 272] , this Court stated as follows : (SCC p. 288, para
26)
“26. We respectfully concur with the aforesaid statement of law.
We have reasons to do so. In the present scenario, tenders are
floated and offers are invited for highly complex technical
subjects. It requires understanding and appreciation of the
nature of work and the purpose it is going to serve. It is common
knowledge in the competitive commercial field that technical bids
pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are scrutinised by the
technical experts and sometimes third-party assistance from
those unconnected with the owner's organisation is taken. This
ensures objectivity. Bidder's expertise and technical capability
and capacity must be assessed by the experts. In the matters of
financial assessment, consultants are appointed. It is because to
check and ascertain that technical ability and the financial
feasibility have sanguinity and are workable and realistic. There
is a multi-prong complex approach; highly technical in nature.
The tenders where public largesse is put to auction stand on a
different compartment. Tender with which we are concerned, is
not comparable to any scheme for allotment. This arena which
we have referred requires technical expertise. Parameters
applied are different. Its aim is to achieve high degree of
perfection in execution and adherence to the time schedule. But,
that does not mean, these tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial
review. Exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if
the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is
meant to favour one. The decision-making process should clearly
show that the said maladies are kept at bay. But where a
decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the
language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for
which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle
of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court
would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and
understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other
22
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and
appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and
projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to
carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play
in the joints.”
20. This being the case, we are unable to fathom how the Division
Bench [New J.K. Roadways v. State (UT of J&K), 2020 SCC OnLine
J&K 733] , on its own appraisal, arrived at the conclusion that the
appellant held work experience of only 1 year, substituting the
appraisal of the expert four-member Tender Opening Committee with
its own.”
4
28. In Silpi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India ,
the Apex Court has held as under: -
“20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to
above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts
should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is
totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court
of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that
the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements
and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The
authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the
tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to
be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the
interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only
interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present
case.”
5
29. In Montecarlo Ltd. vs. NTPC Ltd. , the Apex Court held as
under: -
“26. We respectfully concur with the aforesaid statement of law. We
have reasons to do so. In the present scenario, tenders are floated
and offers are invited for highly complex technical subjects. It
requires understanding and appreciation of the nature of work and
the purpose it is going to serve. It is common knowledge in the
competitive commercial field that technical bids pursuant to the
notice inviting tenders are scrutinized by the technical experts and
sometimes third-party assistance from those unconnected with the
owner's organization is taken. This ensures objectivity. Bidder's
expertise and technical capability and capacity must be assessed by
4 (2020) 16 SCC 489)
5 (2016) 15 SCC 272
23
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
the experts. In the matters of financial assessment, consultants are
appointed. It is because to check and ascertain that technical ability
and the financial feasibility have sanguinity and are workable and
realistic. There is a multi-prong complex approach; highly technical
in nature. The tenders where public largesse is put to auction stand
on a different compartment. Tender with which we are concerned, is
not comparable to any scheme for allotment. This arena which we
have referred requires technical expertise. Parameters applied are
different. Its aim is to achieve high degree of perfection in execution
and adherence to the time schedule. But, that does not mean, these
tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review. Exercise of power of
judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or
mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. The decision-
making process should clearly show that the said maladies are kept
at bay. But where a decision is taken that is manifestly in
consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves
the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow
the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the
court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan
and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in
other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and
appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and
projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to
carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in
the joints.”
30. In M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka &
6
Ors. , the Apex Court emphasized that tender conditions are not to
be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
unless there is a case of public interest detriment, arbitrariness, or
mala fide conduct, and the appellant therein had failed to make
such a case.
31. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not
normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters
challenging the award of contract by the State or public
authorities. As noted in various decisions, the Government and
their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the
6 (2012) 8 SCC 216
24
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or
actuated by bias, the Courts would interfere. The Courts cannot
interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the
Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender
would have been more fair, wiser or logical.
32. In view of the judgments cited (supra), it is amply clear that
that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best
person to understand and appreciate its requirements and if its
interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the
tender document or subservient thereto. In such matters,
ordinarily, the Court would exercise restraint. The technical
evaluation or comparison in tender matters, by the Court is
impermissible. Even if the interpretation given to the tender
document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to
the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for
interfering with the interpretation given by the author/s of the
tender.
33. In the instant case, what we find is that the BPCL invited
bids prescribing specific BQC, which were required to be satisfied
by every bidder. The BQC, inter alia , prescribed requisite past
experience by a bidder with reference to annualized basic value. As
the instant case, under the BQC, one Purchase Order/Work
25
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
required annualized basic value of at least 17.58 crores, two
Purchase Orders/Works required an annualized basic value of at
least Rs. 14.65 crores and three Purchase Orders/Works required
an annualized basic value of at least Rs. 11.72 crores.
34. Further, in the instant case, having regard to Clause 1.2 and
Clause 1.4 of the tender conditions, a MSE bidder seeking to
qualify under the third alternative was required to demonstrate
three successfully executed/completed Purchase Orders, each
having an annualized basic value of not less than Rs. 11.72 crores.
The BQC further required the bidder to furnish all relevant
Purchase Orders together with documentary evidence of successful
execution/completion in support of the experience relied upon.
st
35. Upon perusal of the record, we find that on 1 June 2026 a
pre-bid meeting was held. In the said meeting, the Petitioner raised
queries with regard to the BQC particularly in relation to the
manner in which the said criteria was to be applied in case of
th
ongoing or in-progress multi-year contracts. On 8 June 2026, the
Corrigendum was issued setting out its responses and
clarifications to the queries raised by the bidders during the pre-
bid meeting. The Corrigendum specifically clarified the manner in
which an ongoing/running multi-year contract was to be
considered for the purpose of assessing compliance with the BQC.
26
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
36. We have noticed that pursuant to the said tender, the
Respondent No. 1 received total 8 number of bids. Out of the 8
bidders, 3 bidders were disqualified in the BQC evaluation while
the remaining 5 bidders were found to qualify. Among the 3
disqualified bidders, 1 bidder did not submit relevant WCCs of
Purchase Orders while the other 2 bidders, including the Petitioner
submitted Purchase Order documents which did not meet the
required threshold value and hence were rejected/disqualified.
37. We find that out of the 5 qualified bidders, 2 bidders
submitted concluded contract documents in terms of Clause 1.2 of
the BQC, while the remaining 3 bidders submitted documents in
relation to ongoing contracts in terms of the Corrigendum. The
price bids submitted by the above 5 number of bidders were
thereafter scrutinized by Respondent No. 1 and after having
scrutinized the price bids, it is in the process of awarding the
tender to the L-1 bidder, on the basis that the said L-1 bidder
qualified based on concluded contracts submitted by it, as is
evident from the chart extracted above. The BQC evaluation was
performed by the Respondent No. 1 accordingly. The question of
referring to the Corrigendum, therefore, did not arise for the
selection of L-1 bidder.
27
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
38. In order to satisfy the tender conditions 1.2 and 1.4, the
Petitioner submitted the three credential, details of which are as
follows:-
Particular Document
reference: MRPL
WO 400006357-0
Document
reference: MRPL
WO 4200008450-0
Document
reference: BEML PO
5900039214
Contract Two-year contract
Details of value Rs. 20.39
Cr
Two-year contract
of value Rs. 25.32
Cr
Three-year contract
of value Rs. 25.51
Annualized
Value
Computation
Rs. 10.195 Cr Rs. 12.66 Cr 8.5 Cr
Applicable
MSE
threshold as
per BQC
(Three orders)
11.72 Cr 11.72 Cr 11.72 Cr
Submitted
credentials do not
meet the annualized
threshold PO value
as per BQC Criteria
Submitted
credentials meet
the annualized
threshold PO
value as per BQC
Criteria
Conclusion Submitted
credentials do not
meet the
anualized
threshold PO
value as per BQC
Criteria.
39. Considering the aforesaid credentials, the Respondents have
computed the annualized value as 10.195 crores in respect of the
first document reference and as such, the credentials did not meet
the annualized threshold Purchase Order value as per the BQC
criteria. Similarly, in respect of the second document, the
annualized value was computed as 12.66 crores which was higher
the threshold of 11.72 crores. The second credential met the
annualized threshold Purchase Order value as per the BQC
criteria. As per the third document reference, the annualized value
computation was at Rs. 8.5 crores, which was below the threshold
28
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
of Rs. 11.72 crores and as such, the credentials did not meet the
annualized threshold as per the BQC criteria.
40. In light of the above, it is writ large that even though as per
the BQC, the Petitioner submitted the aforementioned three
references i.e. Purchase Orders, considering the BQC Clauses 1.2
and 1.4 as the MSE annualized the basic value as applicable, the
MSE threshold as per BQC stood at Rs. 11.72 crores. Admittedly,
the two other years did not meet the annualized threshold
Purchase Order value as per the BQC, and therefore, the technical
bid of the Petitioner was rightly rejected, in the given facts and
circumstances.
41. Mr. Naidu, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon
the Corrigendum No. 1 by which the Respondent No. 1 clarified
that the bidder should submit Purchase Order copy and
corresponding satisfactory WCCs, for each unique job of minimum
12 months duration without any break in service. It was also
clarified that the Purchase Orders with corresponding WCCs of
individual years for a multi-year contract may be considered.
Much emphasis has been placed upon the corresponding WCCs to
the extent that the annualized basis value would be evaluated on
WCCs of individual years for multi-year contract.
29
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
42. The interpretation which Mr. Naidu tried to impress upon the
Court is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of
this case as Clause 1.2 of the tender condition deals with the
bidders those have successfully executed/completed at least in
case of one Purchase Order/Work of annualized basic value of Rs.
17.58 crores, in case of two Purchase Orders/Work of annualized
basis value of Rs. 14.65 crores and in case of three Purchase
Orders/Works of annualized basic value of Rs. 11.72 crores.
43. Admittedly, in the instant case, what we find is that the
Petitioner has submitted the bid on the basis of three Purchase
Orders, as the Petitioner falls under the third category. As
discussed above, except the documents under Reference No. MRPL
WO 4200008450-0, the Petitioner does not satisfy the required
annualized value threshold of Rs. 11.72 crores in terms of Clause
1.2 of the tender conditions. As the Respondents had successfully
demonstrated before us that the Corrigendum was only issued to
widen the zone of consideration and thereby seek wider
participation with a further object to introduce and include the
category of bidders with ongoing contracts and not to restrict
participation only to bidders with completed contracts, with a view
to facilitate healthy competition. Therefore, we can safely observe
that the Corrigendum applies only to the bidders who have
30
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
participated on the basis of ongoing Purchase Orders and not qua
completed/concluded contracts.
44. In view of the categorical averments in the Additional-
Affidavit-in-Reply of the Respondent which has been placed before
us, it is evident that the L-1 bidder has been selected with
complete disclosure and transparency. Three contracts performed
by the said bidder have been taken into consideration wherein
annualized value have been Rs. 13.42 crores, Rs. 13.48 crores and
Rs. 16.61 crores. All the three annualized values were applicable
as per the BQC, which admittedly met the annualized threshold
Purchase Order value as per the BQC criteria in terms of Clause
1.2 of the BQC. To the contrary, vis-a-vis in respect of the past two
works, the Petitioner did not meet the requisite criteria.
45. In view of the aforesaid, we can safely observe that while
allotting the contract in favour of the L-1 bidder, in fact, the
Corrigendum had no role to play. Moreover, the Petitioner
admittedly participated in the bid only on the basis of completed
contracts whereas the selection of L-1 bidder is also on the basis of
completed contract having met the annualized value threshold as
per the BQC criteria.
46. We are of the clear view that as held by Courts in the
decisions cited (supra), we cannot substitute our views and/or
31
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
J-WPL.29700.2026.doc
interpretation for that of the author of the contract/tender
document. The case of the Petitioner as espoused by Mr. Naidu
that the Respondents have changed / altered the tender conditions
midway by changing the criteria/goalpost does not persuade
and/or appeal to us, in the given facts. Moreover, in the absence of
any mala fides alleged, manifest arbitrariness and/or illegality
which would otherwise strike at the root of the matter, we see no
reason to interfere in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in this proceeding.
47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit
JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
in the Writ Petition. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Digitally signed by
JAYANT VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.10.09
17:00:04 +0530
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
32
Uploaded on - 09/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 18:02:10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)