M/S Bdepl Acbil(Jv) vs. Northern Coal Field LTD.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria as required by the NIT document concerning working capital. The initial Chartered Accountant certificate submitted by the petitioner showed a shortfall of 7 days in working capital. Although a subsequent corrected document was submitted, the petitioner still fell short of the required working capital for the relevant period by 7 days. The Court found that this shortfall could not be a ground for interference in tender matters, especially in light of the settled principle of law that judicial review in contractual matters is limited. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others*, which cautioned against excessive interference in contractual and commercial matters unless clear arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or bias is established. The Court noted that judges often lack the technical expertise to adjudicate complex technical issues in tenders and should allow 'fair play in the joints' to public sector undertakings. Therefore, the respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner's bid. The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s BDEPL ACBIL(JV), a joint venture, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated December 29, 2023, by which their bid for a coal handling plant tender floated by Northern Coal Fields Ltd. (NCL) was disqualified. The disqualification was based on the petitioner not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for working capital. The petitioner submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate for working capital, but it was found to be short by 7 days. A subsequent corrected certificate also showed the same deficiency. The petitioner argued that they met all other criteria and the shortfall was minor, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The respondents contended that the NIT explicitly stated no further documents would be sought and that the working capital certificate needed to be valid within three months of the tender opening and attested by a Chartered Accountant with a valid UDIN number.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for working capital as stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) document, specifically concerning the period for which working capital must be possessed and the validity of the Chartered Accountant's certificate, as per Clause-C of the NIT? 2. Whether a minor shortfall of 7 days in possessing the required working capital for the stipulated period, despite meeting other eligibility criteria, warrants disqualification of the bid? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they met all eligibility criteria except for a minor shortfall of 7 days in working capital. They argued that the disqualification was arbitrary and that a judgment from the Supreme Court in *Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others* supported their position. They also highlighted that the initial certificate was not forged and a subsequent corrected certificate was provided. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the NIT conditions were clear, requiring working capital to be possessed within three months prior to the tender opening and the supporting document to be attested by a Chartered Accountant with a valid UDIN number. They emphasized Clause 12-B of the NIT, which prohibits seeking further documents after submission, and Clause 12-F, limiting clarifications to submitted documents. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others* to argue for judicial restraint in contractual matters.