M/S Samdariya Builders Private Limited vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing And Infrastructure Development Board

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was disqualified under Clause 19 of the Bid Summary due to a 2-year delay in the Rewa project, for which a penalty of Rs. 7.30 lakhs was imposed. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that the delay was attributable to the employer, stating that this issue was not challenged or adjudicated in the present petition. Regarding the contention of blacklisting, the Court observed that the impugned communication did not indicate such a consequence and therefore, the apprehension was unsubstantiated. The Court further noted that the relationship between the parties was contractual, and filling up a bid did not create an established right for judicial review under Article 226, especially when a disqualification had occurred. The Court declined to interfere with the ongoing tender process, deeming it a commercial decision of public importance. No specific issue was left undecided, but the court did not address the merits of the delay attribution in the Rewa project as it was not properly brought before it.

Facts

M/s Samdariya Builders Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 21.09.2026 and a Request For Proposal (RFP) dated 30.07.2026, both issued by the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board (MPHIDB). The petitioner was disqualified from a tender for the Bhopal Collectorate re-densification project due to a delay of 2 years in constructing the government printing press at Rewa, for which a penalty of Rs. 7.30 lakhs was imposed. The petitioner argued that the decision was predetermined, the hearing was a post-decisional formality, and the delay was not solely attributable to them. The impugned communication also allegedly amounted to debarment without notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's technical bid for the Bhopal Collectorate re-densification project should be evaluated, notwithstanding the disqualification based on a prior project delay, under the Special Eligibility Criterion at Serial No. 19 of the Bid Summary? 2. Whether the decision to disqualify the petitioner was predetermined and if the subsequent hearing violated principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the delay in the Rewa project was solely attributable to the petitioner, and if not, whether the disqualification is justified? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the decision to disqualify was predetermined and the hearing provided was a mere formality. They argued that the delay in the Rewa project was not entirely attributable to them, citing reasons attributable to the employer. They also claimed the impugned communication amounted to debarment without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or the MPHIDB. However, the court's findings indicate that the revenue relied on the communication from the Executive Engineer, Rewa, and the penalty imposed for the delay in the Rewa project as grounds for disqualification under the special eligibility criteria.