Maa Baglamukhi Construction Through Proprietor Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited, focusing on fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. The State must act for a discernible reason, not whimsically. The Court posed questions regarding mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, and public interest. In the present case, a required condition was to supply a self-attested copy of the EPF registration. The petitioner failed to provide this. While the petitioner is a regular contractor, the Court found that the action of the respondent authority was not malafide or arbitrary. The Court referred to judgments like Mohinder Singh Gill and BTL EPC Ltd. v. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that courts should not substitute their opinion for that of experts and should exercise restraint in contractual or commercial matters unless clear arbitrariness or mala fides are established. The Court concluded that no case was made out to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the disqualification was based on a failure to comply with a specific tender condition, and the respondents' action was not found to be arbitrary or malafide.

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Baglamukhi Construction, filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of its technical bid for Tender No. SEC/IND/WS/TS-26/1928 by Respondent No. 4. The petitioner claimed to be an experienced contractor and regular vendor. The tender stipulated opening of technical bids on 13.11.2025, but the respondents opened them on 15.12.2025 without prior notice. The petitioner's bid was rejected with a vague remark "Not complied with Technical Specification" without disclosing specific deficiencies or offering an opportunity for clarification. The petitioner also alleged that technical and financial bids were opened on the same day within 45 minutes, contrary to tender stipulations, and evaluation details were not disclosed. The petitioner submitted a representation and legal notice, which were ignored. The respondents, in their reply, stated the disqualification was due to the EPF registration document lacking digital signatures or self-attestation, as required by the tender document.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid by Respondent No. 4, based on a vague and non-speaking remark "Not complied with Technical Specification," is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the principle in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner that reasons must be stated in the order itself and cannot be supplemented later. 2. Whether the respondents acted in patent violation of the tender conditions by unilaterally postponing the technical bid opening date without prior intimation and by opening technical and financial bids on the same day within 45 minutes, contrary to express stipulations. 3. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's tender at the technical evaluation stage solely on the ground of non-submission of a self-attested copy of the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Registration Certificate is legally sustainable, curable, and proportionate, considering the petitioner is an experienced contractor. Petitioner's Arguments: The disqualification was arbitrary, illegal, and based on a cryptic remark, violating transparency and fairness. The respondents violated tender conditions by changing the opening date without notice and opening technical and financial bids on the same day. The disqualification based on a non-self-attested EPF document is unsustainable and disproportionate, relying on Mohinder Singh Gill and M/S Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. The respondents' attempt to provide reasons in their reply is impermissible. Revenue/State's Arguments: The bid was rejected because the EPF registration document lacked digital signatures or self-attestation, as required by the tender document, which is an essential qualifying document. There was no discrimination, arbitrariness, or mala fides. The court should exercise restraint in tender matters involving technical issues, as per BTL EPC Ltd. v. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd., and defer to the tender inviting authority's discretion.