Tender bidder must satisfy prescribed turnover criteria for the participating unit; turnover from other units cannot cure deficiency.

The petitioner, Oswal Transformers Private Limited, participated in a tender issued by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited for the supply of BIS-certified distribution transformers of various ratings.

Its technical bid was rejected by communication dated 10 September 2026 on the ground that it had not furnished the minimum average annual turnover for the best three years out of the preceding five financial years.

The petitioner contended that its units in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh constituted one composite company and that the turnover of the Rajasthan unit ought to have been considered.

The respondents treated the bid as one submitted by a Chhattisgarh State SSI Unit.

Whether the petitioner’s Rajasthan-unit turnover could be considered for a bid submitted in respect of its Chhattisgarh unit, so as to qualify it under the tender conditions applicable to outside-State bidders.

Whether the petitioner satisfied the minimum average annual turnover requirement applicable to a Chhattisgarh State SSI Unit under Clause 5(B)(iv) of the tender document.

Whether rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid violated Article 14 of the Constitution or otherwise warranted judicial interference.

The Court applied the eligibility conditions contained in Clause 5 of the tender document.

Clause 5(A)(iv) required regular outside-State bidders to have a minimum average annual turnover of ₹150 crore for the best three years out of the last five financial years, while Clause 5(B)(iv) required Chhattisgarh State SSI Units to have a minimum average annual turnover of ₹1 crore for the best three years out of the same period.

The tender conditions also required supporting financial statements and certificates demonstrating turnover and net worth, with non-compliance resulting in rejection of the offer.

The Court treated compliance with these express tender requirements as determinative of technical eligibility.

The Court found that the petitioner had submitted its bid in respect of its Chhattisgarh unit and that the bid was accordingly evaluated under the provisions applicable to a Chhattisgarh State SSI Unit.

Even though the petitioner had placed before the authority the average turnover of both units, that turnover did not satisfy the ₹150 crore threshold applicable to regular outside-State bidders.

More importantly, the petitioner admittedly failed to furnish the required minimum average annual turnover of ₹1 crore for the best three years out of the last five financial years for the Chhattisgarh unit.

Since the petitioner’s Chhattisgarh unit had been established only in August 2025, it could not demonstrate the prescribed turnover for the requisite three financial years.

The Court therefore held that the Tender Inviting Authority had correctly rejected the technical bid in accordance with Clause 5 of the tender document.

It held that the petitioner had not satisfied the minimum turnover requirement applicable to the Chhattisgarh State SSI Unit category and that its technical bid had been rightly rejected.

Finding no merit in the challenge to the rejection communication or in the allegation of arbitrariness, the Court dismissed the writ petition and granted no relief.