M/S Jai Shri Ram Transport Through Its Propriter Shri Atul Kumar Gupta 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 petitioner's objections were considered, and a reasoned order (Annexure R/1) was passed by the Screening Committee before finalizing the tender. The Court found that the order did not mandate that the decision be communicated to the petitioner before finalization, only that objections be genuinely looked into. Regarding the second issue, the Court ruled that it could not delve into the disputed question of forgery of the notarized and registered partnership deed and Power of Attorney. The Court reasoned that such allegations inherently require expert examination, signature comparison, or an inquiry by the Registrar of Firms, which are beyond the summary jurisdiction of a writ court under Article 226. The Court cited that the petitioner had not provided any expert opinion or proof of forgery. The Court also noted that courts are generally reluctant to interfere in tender matters unless there is clear arbitrariness, bias, or illegality, and found the Screening Committee's decision to be reasoned and not unfair. The Court dismissed the plea of parity with other writ petitions, stating they were based on different facts. The Court also highlighted the public interest involved in food grain transport. The petitions were dismissed, and exemplary costs were imposed.

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 transport and handling work. The core issue revolved around the technical qualification and partnership of respondent No. 5, M/s Bhagya Laxmi Roadlines, who was declared the lowest bidder (L-1). The petitioners alleged that respondent No. 5's partnership deed was fake and that its partners were not registered. An earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 45695/2025) was disposed of with an assurance that the petitioner's objections would be considered before finalizing the tender. Despite a hearing and written objections, the Screening Committee rejected the petitioner's claims, finding the partnership deed and Power of Attorney to be registered and notarized documents. The petitioners challenged the subsequent work orders and letters approving respondent No. 5's rates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the direction given in the order dated 21.11.2025 in W.P. No. 45695/2025 was followed by the respondents, specifically regarding the consideration of the petitioner's objections prior to finalizing the tender. The petitioner argued that a mere hearing and subsequent work order did not constitute proper consideration as promised. The State and Corporation contended that the Screening Committee heard the petitioner and passed a reasoned order, thus complying with the court's direction. 2. Whether the High Court, exercising its writ powers 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 the plea of parity. The petitioner relied on the principle that disputed facts do not oust writ jurisdiction and sought parity with another case (W.P. No. 2155/2026). Respondent No. 5 argued that the court should not replace the tender authority's judgment on technical matters and that forgery requires proof not available in writ proceedings. The State supported the rejection of objections, stating that the matter touches public interest and food security.