Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. Steel Authority Of INDIA Limited (Sail) And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging his technical disqualification from Tender No. GEM/2026/B/7121849, issued by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). The tender was for SMS Slag handling and management. The eligibility criteria required bidders to have completed similar work, either three works of INR 15.19 Crores each, two works of INR 20.25 Crores each, or one work of INR 30.38 Crores each, all without GST. 'Similar work' was defined to include processing and handling of slag, and owning/hiring equipment for material handling and transportation. The petitioner submitted three work orders for handling experience and four for processing experience, claiming their cumulative value exceeded the threshold. SAIL disqualified the petitioner, citing discrepancies in work order numbers, differing job subjects, and lack of inter-linkages in the processing work orders.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was correctly disqualified. The definition of 'similar work' in Clause 3(i) explicitly requires any work order/MOU/Agreement to include "Experience of Processing and handling." This means the work order(s) relied upon must encompass both activities. The petitioner submitted two distinct sets of documents: one for handling experience and another for processing experience. The Court found that the four work orders submitted for processing experience were entirely different from the work orders submitted for handling experience. This contravened the eligibility criteria, which stipulated that the work order(s) should include both processing and handling. The Court also noted that the IISCO Steel Plant tender, cited by the petitioner, did not provide a definition for 'similar work,' making the comparison invalid. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality in SAIL's decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's submitted work orders satisfy the eligibility criteria for 'similar work' as defined in Clause 3(i) of the tender, specifically regarding the requirement for a single work order/MOU/Agreement to include both processing and handling activities, or if separate work orders for each activity are permissible under Clause 3(b)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities had not raised objections to the handling experience work orders, implying they accepted separate proofs for handling and processing. They argued that the ground for rejection, stating the subject of one work order was different from others, rendered the "in any combination" phrase in Clause 3(b) redundant. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed they were qualified in a similar tender by IISCO Steel Plant with identical criteria using the same documents, suggesting a contradictory stance by the authorities. The missing '111500' number in processing work orders was explained as being specific to handling experience work orders. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent authorities argued that the work orders submitted for processing experience were not similar to those for handling experience. They pointed out discrepancies in work order numbers, including the absence of '111500' and the presence of '111670' in some processing work orders. They also noted a lack of inter-linkages or cross-references in the processing work orders, unlike the handling experience work orders.
Sections Cited
Clause 3(b), Clause 3(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order of disqualification dated 29th June, 2026. 18. Mr. Datta submits that slag generated in pyro-metallurgical operations in Steel Plants is a solid industrial waste covered under Note at the end of Schedule 1 of Hazardous and other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 for which “Guidelines on Management of Pyro-metallurgical Slags-Iron–and–Steel-Slags -Ver-1.0- 2023” have been notified by the Central Pollution Control Board in December, 2023. Category 3(a) in the schedule under the Specific Relief Act, itemizes solid waste management as infrastructure Sub Sector.
Mr. Datta submits that Section 20(A) read with Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act inter alia provides that no injunction can be granted if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of 10
relevant facility relating thereto or services being the subject matter of such project. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Project Director, NH No. 45 & 220, NHAI vs. M. Hakeem reported in (2021) 9 SCC 1 and submits that injunctions against highway projects have now become impossible to obtain in view of Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act.
Clause 3(b) of the eligibility criteria provides that : “3(b): Two similar completed works order/ MOU/ Agreement which must include all the activities as mentioned below in any combination, each costing not less than the amount equal to INR 20.25 Crores (without GST).”
In the eligibility criteria Clause 3(i), Similar Work is defined which reads as follows: “i) Any work order/ MOU/ Agreement that includes “Experience of processing and handling (excavation/ extraction/digging and its loading/ transportation / uploading from the running/ operating slag pits of SMS or sand pits of BF) of Steel / Iron / metal slag in any steel plant, where processing means separation of metal & slag and its crushing/ screening/ Sizing/ extraction/ excavation”.
The issue in the present writ petition whether the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria to qualify techno-commercial bid. To prove eligibility, the petitioner has submitted the documents in terms of Clause 3(b) of the eligibility criteria. The petitioner has submitted two sets of documents to satisfy the criteria with respect to the handling and processing. In the first set, the petitioner has submitted three work
11
orders to satisfy handling experience. All three work orders having common No. 111500 and aggregate work order value without GST of all three work orders is more than 20.25 Crores. The respondent authorities have accepted the three work orders of the 1st Set in technical evaluation as forming one composite work orders for handling experience.
As regard to the 2nd set of four work orders submitted by the petitioner to prove his eligibility for processing experience, the respondent authorities have raised objection to the effect that: “(i). None of the four work orders contained any common number 111500. (ii). The job name of the fourth work order was found to be completely different from the 1st three work orders in the 2nd Set.
(iii). None of the four work orders were found to have any inter-linkages and cross-references, i.e. mention of any composite contract period as was there in the three work orders of the 1st Set.
(iv). A different common no. “111670” was found in the work order numbers in two work orders i.e. 2nd and 3rd work orders. “
The petitioner has submitted his certificate issued by the JSW Steel Limited dated 31st March, 2025 wherein it is certified that the petitioner company is handling the work of “Un-processed Slag Shifting, Processing, Metal Recovery, Shifting of Non-metallic Slag for SMS-3 EAF/ ZPF works” by using their owned Vehicles Excavators, Loaders, Dozers etc. with Skilled manpower. The value of the work successfully
12
executed from 24th June, 2021 to 31st March, 2025, against various work orders are Rs. 29.57,00,420/-. The year wise total quantity and abstract is enclosed with the said certificate as Annexure-1. Annexure - 1 contains details of work orders which reads as follows: Annexure - 1 Financial Year Particulars Work-Order No. & Date Work order Value (in Cr.) Work executed value (in Cr.) Qty Executed (in MT) Metallic Non-Metallic 2021-22 JSW original work-order given for t3 years VNJR/111500/SER/ R/4500129091 Dt. 16-06-2021 (EAF Work) 11.043 7.033 17,379.400 4,97,421.650 2022-23 3.596 28,708.330 1,79,103.250 2022-23 VNJR/111500/SER/ R/4500137261 Dt. 11-02-2022 (ZPF Work)
535 0.535 2,295.680
26,642.260 2022-23 VNJR/111500/SER/ R/4500142324 Dt. 11-05-2022 (ZPF Work)
067 5.830 12,290.700 3,14,441.810 2023-24 0.032 400.130 178.160 VNJR/111500/SER/ R/4500190284 Dt. 26-07-2024 (EPF & ZPF Work)
436 0.514 655.480 29,300.850 2024-25 Upto Mar 2025 12.030 59109.350 510695.750 Total: 30.081 29.570 1,20,839.07 15,57,783.73
The petitioner has disclosed Service Orders issued by the JSW Steel Limited corresponding to the particulars of the work orders mentioned in the Certificate issued by the JSW Steel Limited dated 31st March, 2025, along with Annexure-1. The Service Orders which the petitioner has relied upon correspondence to the work orders mentioned in Annexure–1 are not matching with each other. In none of the service
13
orders, the work order No. “111500” is reflected. In two of the service orders, the work order is mentioned as “111670” instead on “111500”.
It is clear from the record that the works orders which the petitioner has relied upon for processing experience is not similar to the work orders of handling experience.
Similar work is defined in Clause 3(i) of the Eligibility Criteria. As per the said clause, the contractor has to satisfy that any work order/ MOU/ Agreement that includes “Experience of Processing and handling” that means the work order which the contractor relied upon for his experience, the said work order/orders should include experience of handling and Processing.
In the present case, the petitioner has relied upon two sets of documents i.e. first set of documents are with regard to handling experience and another set is of processing experience. There is no dispute with regard to the experience in handling. The second set of the documents i.e. for work orders which the petitioner relied upon for processing experience is not of the similar work orders of the handling process. The four work orders for processing experience is totally different from the work orders of handling experience. The petitioner has relied upon different work orders for handling and different work orders for processing which are not the eligibility criteria as mentioned in Clause 3(b) and 3(i).
14
The petitioner has raised another issue that IISCO Steel Plant has issued similar tender of identical eligibility criteria wherein the petitioner had participated and was qualified at the techno-commercial stage with the same affidavit, certificate and the work orders and the petitioner was allowed to participate in the financial stage. The petitioner has disclosed eligibility criteria of the Bid Initiation of IISCO in the supplementary written notes of argument but this Court finds that in the said Bid Invitation documents IISCO has not provided the meaning of similar work.
The respondent authorities also raised the issue that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the petitioner has not submitted to the clarification sent to the petitioner through GeM portal on 6th June, 2026 and also not disclosed the disqualification order dated 29th June, 2026. This Court finds that though the petitioner has not disclosed with regard to the communication of disqualification but in para 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that on 29th June, 2026, the respondents have illegally disqualified the petitioner. This Court also finds that the petitioner has not only challenged the communication dated 15th July, 2026 but the petitioner has prayed for recalling of the decision of the respondents wherein the petitioner has been declared technically disqualified from the tender in question.
Considering the above, this Court did not find any illegality of the decision taken by the respondent authorities by declaring the petitioner technically disqualified in the Tender No. GeM/2026/B/7121849. 15
WPA No. 20067 of 2026 is dismissed. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.