Bid Can't Be Rejected For Non-Production Of Document Not Prescribed In Notice Inviting Tender : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep.9) observed that a bid pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (“NIT”) can't be rejected solely for non-production of the document that was not prescribed in the NIT. The Court added that the tender authorities cannot impose conditions not expressly stated in the tender document.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi set aside the MP High Court's ruling that upheld a bidder's disqualification for not producing a Joint Venture Agreement, even though the NIT did not mandate its submission.

“In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold the 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.”, the court observed.

The Respondent- Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. issued a tender for coal beneficiation and logistics. The Appellant-Maha Mineral relied on its experience as a 45% partner in Hind Maha Mineral LLP and submitted a Work Execution Certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Mining Corporation (MSMC) for placing a bid to showcase its past experience. The certificate confirmed its 45% share in the consortium and referenced the JV agreement.

Despite this, the Tender Committee disqualified Maha Mineral's technical bid, holding that the JV agreement itself was indispensable under Clause 5(D). The High Court upheld the disqualification prompting Maha Mineral to appeal to the Supreme Court, which ultimately disapproved of the High Court's approach in upholding disqualification on an issue that was never part of the Tender Committee's reasoning.

The Court observed that when the production of the JV agreement was not the mandate of the NIT, then the rejection of the Appellant's bid for only producing Work Experience Certificate cannot be justified.

The appeal was partly allowed, with the case remanded to the High Court to decide within two months the limited issue of washery capacity under Clause 5(B), since the allegation that the appellant's washeries were tied up with MSMC was raised for the first time in written submissions, depriving the appellant of a chance to rebut with evidence and violating natural justice.

Cause Title: Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. Versus Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 885

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Mrs. Farah Hashmi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ghate, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nikhil Nasre, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. K.m Abish, Adv. Mr. Manan, Adv. Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv. Mr. Bijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Arpan Pawar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Himanshu Satija, AOR Mr. Harsh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Chiranjeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Pawar, Adv. Mrs. Neha Mehta Satija, Adv.