Tender eligibility requires work order(s) demonstrating both processing and handling experience, not separate unrelated orders.

SAIL issued Tender No. GEM/2026/B/7121849 for handling, processing, transportation and management of slag, scrap and related materials at its SMS complex.

Clause 3(b) required two similar completed work orders, each valued at not less than ₹20.25 crore, and Clause 3(i) defined “similar work” as work involving both processing and handling of steel, iron or metal slag.

The petitioner relied on three work orders, having a common number “111500”, to establish handling experience, and four other work orders to establish processing experience.

SAIL sought clarifications through the GeM portal, including regarding the linkage between the work orders. The petitioner did not respond to the clarification dated 6 June 2026, following which the bid was shown as “Expired” and the petitioner was technically disqualified on 29 June 2026.

Whether the petitioner’s separate sets of work orders for handling and processing satisfied Clause 3(b) read with Clause 3(i) of the tender eligibility criteria.

Whether SAIL acted illegally in rejecting the petitioner’s bid on the ground that the processing-related work orders were not linked to, or similar to, the handling-related work orders.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to rely on SAIL’s alleged acceptance of the same documents in an earlier IISCO tender to challenge its disqualification in the present tender.

The Court applied the eligibility conditions contained in Clauses 3(b) and 3(i) of the tender. Clause 3(b) required two similar completed work orders, each valued at not less than ₹20.25 crore, while Clause 3(i) required the relevant work order, MOU or agreement to include experience of both processing and handling of steel, iron or metal slag.

The Court interpreted “similar work” as requiring the work relied upon to demonstrate experience in processing and handling, rather than permitting the bidder to rely on wholly different work orders for the two components.

The Court also considered the respondents’ reliance on Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, concerning injunctions affecting infrastructure projects, and the decision in Project Director, NH No. 45 & 220, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1, although the dismissal ultimately rested on the petitioner’s failure to satisfy the tender conditions.

The Court accepted that the three work orders in the first set, all bearing the common number “111500”, could establish handling experience and that their aggregate value exceeded ₹20.25 crore.

However, the four work orders relied upon for processing were materially different: they did not bear the common number “111500”, the fourth work order had a different job description, there were no inter-linkages or cross-references showing that they formed one composite contract, and two work orders carried a different common number, “111670”.

The supporting JSW certificate and its annexure also did not correspond consistently with the service orders produced by the petitioner.

Since Clause 3(i) required the qualifying work to include both processing and handling, the petitioner could not combine one set of work orders demonstrating handling with a separate and unconnected set demonstrating processing.

The Court further held that the petitioner’s qualification in an earlier IISCO tender was not determinative because that tender did not contain the same definition of “similar work”.

The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s procedural objections or in its contention that the impugned communication was the only relevant disqualification decision; the pleadings sufficiently referred to the earlier disqualification.

SAIL’s decision to technically disqualify the petitioner was therefore not illegal or arbitrary.

W.P.A. No. 20067 of 2026 was dismissed, with parties permitted to act on the server copy of the judgment.