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

Facts

Raudra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.11.2025 by the Superintending Engineer, V.O. Chidambaranar Port Authority (Respondents 2-4). The petitioner sought to quash this order and have their financial bid considered for a tender to establish a 3 MLD desalination plant. The tender, issued on 02.04.2025, had minimum qualification criteria (MQC) for work experience. The petitioner claimed to have completed a similar project in Oman with a Joint Venture partner. They submitted various documents, including contract details, invoices, and a provisional completion certificate, arguing that the project value exceeded the tender specification. The respondents sought clarification on work completion certificates and JV partner details. The petitioner's bid was initially rejected on 24.10.2025 for not fulfilling MQC, leading to a previous writ petition. After submitting further documents, the bid was again rejected by the impugned order.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no anomaly in the impugned order. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, particularly N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Others, which emphasize that the satisfaction of tender conditions is primarily the prerogative of the authority inviting bids. The Court stated that it should refrain from interfering with well-considered decisions taken by such authorities, especially in matters involving technical expertise. The Court noted that the Technical Evaluation Committee had provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, and the decision-making process was not found to be arbitrary or mala fide. The Court concluded that the petitioner had not been able to satisfy the MQC as consistently required by the respondents, which included the need for a work completion certificate and design details. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's bid was upheld.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's submission of a provisional completion certificate and other supporting documents, including water production records and payment details for a project executed under a build, own, and operate model, satisfied the Minimum Qualification Criteria (MQC) regarding work experience as stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for establishing a desalination plant. Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner contended that they had fulfilled the MQC by providing sufficient documentation to demonstrate the completion of a similar project in Oman, which exceeded the tender specifications. They argued that a formal work completion certificate was not strictly applicable due to the project's build, own, and operate model and the ongoing operation and maintenance period. They also asserted that the work completion certificate was not explicitly stated as a mandatory requirement in the tender notice, and they had provided details of completed projects. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to satisfy the MQC, specifically regarding the work completion certificate and design details of the sewage treatment plant. They maintained that the Tender Committee had provided sufficient opportunities for clarification and that the decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the tender conditions. The respondents relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing judicial restraint in interfering with tender decisions.