Raudra Engineering PVT.LTD. vs. Ministry Of Ports, Shipping And Waterways

Facts

The appellant, Raudra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., challenged its disqualification from a tender floated by V.O. Chidambaranar Port Authority (VOCPA) for establishing and operating a desalination plant. The disqualification was based on not fulfilling the Minimum Qualification Criteria (MQC). The appellant's technical bid was initially rejected on 24.10.2025 for lacking design experience certificates. After a writ petition led to a re-evaluation, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) again rejected the bid on 17.11.2025, citing the experience certificate not specifying seawater desalination work. Subsequently, a new reason, the absence of TDS certificates, was raised. The appellant argued that its work in Oman was seawater desalination and TDS was not applicable. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding the appellant did not meet both MQC ingredients: successful completion of similar works including design, and a work completion certificate with TDS. This appeal is against that dismissal.

Held

The Court held that the appellant's technical bid was rightly rejected for not fulfilling the Minimum Qualification Criteria (MQC). The MQC required successful completion of similar works, including design, and a work completion certificate with TDS. The Court found that the work completion certificate submitted by the appellant lacked clarity regarding the design component and the specific nature of the work as seawater desalination. While the appellant argued that TDS was not applicable for its Omani project, the Court noted that the tender conditions clearly mandated the submission of prior experience of similar work, which includes design, and the value of the prior work. The Court observed that the rival bidder's work completion certificate for a similar project at Mangalore Refineries Ltd. contained all necessary details satisfying the MQC, including both EPC (design, engineering, procurement) and Operation & Maintenance components. The Court concluded that the appellant had not furnished the work completion certificate with all required details, and therefore, the tenderer could not presume satisfaction regarding previous similar work. The Court found no reason to interfere with the tenderer's decision, which was based on the satisfaction of MQC, and dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the learned Single Judge's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant's technical bid was wrongly rejected for not fulfilling the Minimum Qualification Criteria (MQC) as stipulated in the tender document, specifically concerning the requirement of prior experience in similar works including design and the submission of work completion certificates with TDS, thereby raising a question of law and mixed fact and law under the tender conditions. Contentions of the Appellant: - The respondents continuously changed the reasons for disqualification, demonstrating a "changing goal post" and procedural impropriety, violating principles of judicial review as laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India. - The tender document did not explicitly stipulate the production of design details. The appellant's experience in Oman was for seawater desalination, and TDS certificates were not applicable as the Omani government does not impose income tax. - The learned Single Judge misapplied the dictum in N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinoth Kumar Jain. Contentions of the Respondents (VOCPA and its officials): - The appellant failed to fulfill both ingredients of the MQC: successful completion of similar works including design, and submission of a work completion certificate along with TDS certificates. - The recommendation of the Project Management Consultant (PMC), an expert body, should not be disregarded. - The work completion certificate submitted by the rival bidder, M/s. Va Tech WABAG Ltd – Ramky Infrastructure Ltd-JV, contained all necessary details satisfying the MQC, unlike the appellant's submission.