M/S Rahul Saluja Through Its Proprietor Shri Rahul Saluja vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the direction in the order dated 21.11.2025 was complied with, as the Screening Committee considered the petitioner's objections and passed a reasoned order. The Court found that the Screening Committee's rejection of objections was not unfair or without basis, and that the petitioner had not provided sufficient proof, expert opinion, or lodged a complaint to substantiate the forgery claim. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that it cannot go into the disputed question of forgery in a writ petition under Article 226, as such matters inherently require expert examination and evidence, which is beyond the summary jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court noted that the petitioner has alternative remedies, including approaching the Registrar of Firms, filing a civil suit, lodging a criminal complaint, or invoking the grievance mechanism under Clause 25.13 of the NIT. The Court also reiterated that courts are generally reluctant to interfere in tender matters unless there is clear arbitrariness, bias, or illegality, citing several Supreme Court judgments. The Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned orders, emphasizing the time-sensitive and public interest nature of foodgrain transport. The Court also dismissed the connected petitions for similar reasons, noting that claims of parity based on separate facts and statements are not sufficient without independent merit. The Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioners.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Rahul Saluja, M/s Jai Shri Ram Transport, and M/s Jai Bhawani Construction and Transport, filed writ petitions challenging tender processes initiated by respondent No. 2/Corporation for "Rabi-Kharif Uparjan 2025-27 Transport/Handling Work" and "Hammalisah Lambi Duri Parivahan Karya (Khadyann) 2025-27". The core issue revolved around the technical qualification of respondent No. 5, M/s Bhagya Laxmi Roadlines, who was declared the lowest bidder (L-1). Petitioners alleged that respondent No. 5's partnership deed and Power of Attorney were fake, and that respondent No. 5 had concealed information about applying for other tenders. An earlier writ petition filed by M/s Rahul Saluja (W.P. No. 45695/2025) was disposed of with a direction that objections would be considered before finalizing the tender. Subsequently, the Screening Committee rejected the petitioner's objections, leading to the issuance of work orders to respondent No. 5, which are now under challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the direction given in the order dated 21.11.2025 in W.P. No. 45695/2025 was complied with by the respondents. (Question of law and fact). The petitioner argued that "passing an order" implies a clear, written, and communicated decision, and merely holding a hearing followed by issuing a work order does not constitute compliance. They contended that valid registration and a proper Power of Attorney are compulsory conditions as per Clauses 5.1, 6.6, and 9 of the NIT, citing N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain and Dilip Kumar Jaiswal v. MPSCSC. The petitioner also sought parity with relief granted in W.P. No. 2155/2026 and argued that the action violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The revenue/State and respondent No. 5 argued that the order was complied with as the Screening Committee heard the petitioner and passed a reasoned order. They contended that the interim order in W.P. No. 2155/2026 was not applicable and that the charge of forgery was unsubstantiated. They also argued that the Court should not replace the tender authority's judgment on technical matters, especially when the petitioner did not exhaust the remedy under Clause 25.13 of the NIT. 2. Whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can adjudicate on the alleged forgery of the partnership deed and Power of Attorney of respondent No. 5, and if the impugned action warrants interference on this or other grounds, including parity. (Question of law). The petitioner relied on M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar to argue that the existence of a disputed question of fact does not oust writ jurisdiction. The respondents argued that forgery requires expert examination and evidence, which is beyond the scope of summary writ jurisdiction.