Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29651
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3087 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020343882026
MAA BAGLAMUKHI CONSTRUCTION THR. PROPRITER ARYAN
DHINGRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gauransh Vyas - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Harshit Tapadiya, Advocate for the respondents.
Reserved on : 25/09/2026
Pronounced on : 22/10/2026
ORDER
Per : Justice Subodh Abhyankar
1] This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner Maa
Baglamukhi Construction under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against
the order dated 18/08/2026 passed by the writ Court in W.P.
No.459/2026, whereby his writ petition assailing the rejection of his
technical bid has been dismissed.
2] In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid petition was filed by
the appellant/petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
17:15:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29651
2

“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, including a writ in the
nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the action/decision of
Respondent No.4 whereby the Technical Bid submitted by the Petitioner
in respect of Tender No.SEC/IND/WS/TS-26/1928 was illegally and
arbitrarily disqualified with the vague remark “Not complied with
Technical Specification”;
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, including a writ in the
nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent authorities to treat the
Petitioner’s Technical Bid as technically qualified and to forthwith open
and consider the Petitioner’s Financial Bid in respect of Tender No.
SEC/IND/WS/TS-26/1928;
(c) Pass any other order(s), direction(s), or relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, in the interest of justice.”
3] The appellant/petitioner happens to be engaged in the business of civil
construction, whereas the respondents/MPPKVV Co. Ltd. issued a
NIT dated 13/11/2025 for construction of control room, chain link
mesh facing, yard levelling & metaling, drilling of tube-well and allied
civil works for new 33/11 KV sub-station at Shajapur near Water
Works, under O&M Circle Shajapur. In the said bid, respondent No.5
also participated, however at the time of evaluation of technical bid,
the appellant’s bid was rejected on account of non-compliance of
technical specification, and the tender was awarded to respondent
No.5, who was also L2, which had led the appellant to file the petition.
4] Counsel for the appellant/petitioner has submitted that while rejecting
the appellant’s technical bid, no specific reason was assigned by the
respondents, and it is only in the reply to the petition that they have
come up with a reason that the technical bit of the appellant was
rejected on account of non-furnishing of self attested copy of EPF
document, although the EPF document was filed. Counsel has
submitted that despite the fact that the EPF document was filed, the
bid was rejected on a trivial ground of non self attested of the EPF
document, Counsel has submitted that the appellant was L1 and there
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
17:15:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29651
3

is a difference of more than Rs.3 Lakhs in the bid submitted by the
appellant and respondent No.5, and only with a view to accommodate
the respondent No.5, that the appellant’s bid has been cancelled
without assigning any reason as prescribed in Clause (iv) of Para 6.2.1
of Procurement Manual (Policies and Procedures) of MPPKVVCL,
which relates to ‘ Completeness of the bid’ . It is also submitted that the
reason assigned in the reply cannot be taken into consideration in the
absence of the same reasoning assigned in the rejection of technical
bid of the appellant. In support of his submission, counsel for the
appellant has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court
in the case of M/s Star Enterprises and others vs. City and Industrial
Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and another (1990) 3
SCC 280, Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 SCC 405, Poddar
Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and others (1991)
3 SCC 273, Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. and another vs. Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority and others passed in Civil
Appeal No.6772 of 2013 dated 11/09/2013 and the decision rendered
by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow in Writ-C No.5810 of 2026
dated 29/05/2026 .
5] Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer
and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the writ
Court has rightly rejected the petition on account of non-compliance of
self attestation of EPF document and thus, it is submitted that even if
the EPF document was filed by the appellant, it was of no avail to him
in the absence of self attestation. Counsel has also submitted that there
was no condition in the tender document itself for rectification of any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
17:15:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29651
4

mistake even if inadvertently committed by the bidder and thus, the
respondents could not have afforded any opportunity to the appellant
to rectify the said mistake.
6] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7] On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the record, it is
found that so far as the necessary documents are concerned, it is
provided in Section-II of the bid document under the heading of
‘Qualifying Criterion’, the relevant excerpts of which read as under:-
Sr. No.
Particulars Supporting Document
i Basic Qualification-
General
ii The contractors/bidders registered under centralized
registration category of MP PWD or duly registered
in erstwhile MPSEB or its successor Companies in
appropriate class of Civil / Electrical works.
Copy of registration.
Iii They do not anticipate change in the ownership
during proposed period of contract, (if such a change
is anticipated, the scope and effect thereof shall be
defined),
An undertaking on bidder's
company letterhead.
iv The bidder must be registered for Goods and Service
Tax (GST).
Self-Attested copy of the
GST registration certificate
with code number issued by
Government of India.
v The bidder must be registered for (EPF)
Department.
Self-Attested copy of the
(EPF) registration
certificate with number
issued by (EPF)
Department).
- - -
8] It is not denied that the EPF document of the appellant was uploaded
along with the other document but admittedly, it was not self attested
as prescribed, whereas Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause-a of Para 6.2.1 of the
Procurement Manual Policies and Procedures of MPPKVVCL reads as
under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
17:15:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29651
5

6.2.1 Preliminary evaluation:
(a) After opening of bids, the TEC shall undertake preliminary examination
of the bids. During the course of preliminary examination, each bid shall be
examined to determine whether it is generally of acceptable quality,
complete and substantially responsive to the bidding documents. In
particular, the following aspects shall be examined by the TEC:
...x...
...x...
(iv) Completeness of the bid
(A) The TEC shall determine whether the each bid opened and taken up for
evaluation is of acceptable quality and is generally complete with respect to
requirements prescribed in the bidding documents. In this regard, the bids
will be examined to verify whether all attachments/annexure, price
schedules, technical data sheets for items, data/documents in support of
meeting Qualifying Requirements (including sub-QR for sub-contractors, if
any) provided in the bidding documents, and to establish required
capability and capacity, have been furnished by the bidders.”
(emphasis supplied)
9] Thus, it is apparent that the bids were to be examined to verify
whether all attachments/annexure including data/documents in support
of meeting Qualifying Requirements (including sub-QR for sub-
contractors, if any) provided in the bidding documents, and to
establish required capability and capacity, have been furnished by the
bidders.”
10] So far as the rejection of the appellant’s bid is concerned, it has been
conveyed to him in the following manner:-
Bids List
Sr.No. Bid Number Bidder Name Submitted
Status Remarks Status
Date
Updated On
1 1377490 Maa Baglamukhi
17-Nov-2025
Not Admitted
Not Complied
15-Dec-2025
Construction
09:22 AM
Pre
with technical
12:39 PM
Qual/Technical
specification
2 1379705 Rohit Rathore 17-Nov-2025
Admitted-
15-Dec-2025
11:20 AM
Finance
01:33 PM
3 1376063 Vipul Jain 16-Nov-2025
Admitted-
15-Dec-2025
11:36 PM
Finance
01:33 PM
11] It is found that so far as the impugned order is concerned, the learned
Judge of the writ Court has relied upon the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh
Engineering Works and others (1991) 3 SCC 273, Rashmi Metaliks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
17:15:57

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29651
6

Limited and another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority and others (2013) 10 SCC 95 and Jagdish Mandal vs.
State of Orissa and others (2007) 14 SCC 517 .
12] On close scrutiny of the documents filed on record, we find that there
was no condition in the tender document itself for rectification of any
mistake even if inadvertently committed by the bidder as has also been
submitted by the counsel for the respondent, and thus, the respondents
could not have afforded any opportunity to the appellant to rectify the
said mistake.
13] It is also found that although in the communication dated 15/12/2025,
the reason for rejecting the petitioner’s bid has been mentioned as ‘not
complied with technical specification’ , but in their reply, the
respondents have specified that it was due to the appellant’s failure to
submit the requisite document i.e., self attested copy of the EPF
document, thus, it cannot be said that the said reason was not the same
technical ground on which the petitioner’s bid was cancelled, which
was in line with Sub-Clause (iv)(A) of Clause-a of Para 6.2.1 of the
Procurement Manual Policies and Procedures of MPPKVVCL. In
view of the same, no mala fide or arbitrariness can be alleged against
the respondents in passing the impugned order.
14] Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
krjoshi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 22-10-2026
17:15:57