Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that a bidder's failure to submit required documents in the specified format justified disqualification in a public tender. The court dismissed a petition seeking to challenge the rejection of a technical bid in a tender process initiated for allotment of lease of land in MIHAN, Nagpur. The court directed that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted, having found no arbitrariness, irrationality, or perversity in the actions of the tendering authority.

The petition was filed by a party whose bid was disqualified on grounds of non-submission of summary information in the prescribed Exhibit-IV format and failure to establish the required experience of residential and/or commercial construction. The Division Bench found that the tendering authority's interpretation of eligibility conditions was final and binding. The court refused to entertain claims questioning the eligibility of the successful bidder, noting that such inquiry becomes academic once the petitioner is found ineligible. The petition was accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Tamil Nadu Over ADGP Suspension | You Can’t Do This, This Is Very Demoralising | Shocked By High Court’s Arrest Order

The case involved a public tender issued by Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. (MADCL) for lease allotment of Plot No. 18, Sector 22, measuring 47,347.975 sq. meters (approximately 11.69 acres) in MIHAN, Nagpur. The land was designated for residential and commercial use outside the SEZ. The original tender floated in September 2024 attracted only three bidders, excluding Respondent No. 3. Due to poor response and in accordance with CVC guidelines, the tender was cancelled.

A revised tender was issued on 10 October 2024. The petitioner submitted its bid on the extended last date of 18 November 2024. A total of five bids were received. The Technical Committee, after evaluating the bids on 29 November 2024, disqualified the petitioner and another bidder for non-submission of requisite documents, including the Exhibit-IV summary format.

Three bidders were found technically qualified, including Respondent No. 3. On the same day, financial bids were opened, and Respondent No. 3 emerged as the highest bidder quoting Rs. 8,407 per sq. meter. A Letter of Acceptance was issued to Respondent No. 3 on 2 December 2024.

The petitioner sought reasons for rejection under the Right to Information Act and obtained the Technical Evaluation Report on 6 January 2025. The stated reasons for rejection were: (i) failure to submit information as per Exhibit-IV and (ii) non-compliance with experience criteria of construction of residential/commercial projects with at least 6 lakh square feet built-up area.

On 14 January 2025, the petitioner alleged submission of forged documents by Respondent No. 3. An official reply dated 22 January 2025 reiterated rejection due to non-fulfilment of technical criteria. The present writ petition was filed on 26 February 2025.

The petitioner contended that submission in an older version of Exhibit-IV format was an inadvertent error and that the supporting documents submitted already indicated the requisite experience. The petitioner also alleged that the project experience of Respondent No. 3 was falsely certified and not actually completed as claimed.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (MADCL and its tender committee) opposed the petition stating that the corrigendum to the tender made submission of Exhibit-IV in a new format mandatory. The petitioner, having benefited from the extended deadline provided in the same corrigendum, could not plead ignorance or selectively rely on parts of it.

It was also contended that the petitioner failed to prove that the constructed area qualified as residential and/or commercial, as its occupancy certificate mentioned only "Assembly" use. According to the authority, "Assembly" buildings, under the applicable rules, were not categorized as residential or commercial.

Respondent No. 3 submitted that their bid complied with all requirements and that the constructed area was certified by a registered architect as completed up to the required scale by November 2024. Respondent No. 3 further argued that reliance on RERA documents uploaded in 2023 ignored the progress made by the date of bid submission.

"The Occupancy Certificate does not clarify that the building constructed by the Petitioner is for residential or commercial use."

"The Architect however certified that the ‘Project is Residential-cum-Assembly Project’. After taking into consideration definition of the term ‘Assembly’ under the relevant Act and Rules, the tendering authority has refused to consider the experience of the Petitioner as compliant."

"The interpretation made by the tendering authority would be final and binding and it is not for this Court to give a different interpretation either to the tender condition or to the certificate relied upon by the Petitioner."

"If the Occupancy Certificate is silent about the exact use of the building, at least the Architect ought to have certified that the building is constructed for use as residential and/or commercial purpose."

"Having raised false plea in the rejoinder, Petitioner would be disentitled to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

"The tender condition required possession of experience of construction of residential/commercial project with total built-up area of 6 lakhs square feet, the tendering authority demanded information of built-up area in Exhibit-IV format."

"Petitioner has apparently submitted Exhibit-IV in old format by ignoring the new format introduced along with the Corrigendum."

"It is impossible to believe that the Corrigendum was not properly uploaded on the E-portal or was not accessible to the bidders as falsely contended in the rejoinder."

"The comparison of financial bids can be made only if the bidders satisfy the tender eligibility criteria."

"Mere higher quote by the Petitioner cannot be a reason alone for allotment of plot in its favour as the tendering authority is expected to act fairly and in strict adherence to the tender conditions."

"There is no warrant for interference at the instance of the Petitioner who is found to have raised a false defence in rejoinder disentitling it from invoking discretionary jurisdiction of this Court."

The Court recorded:"We are therefore of the view that Petitioner did not submit mandatory document in prescribed format of Exhibit-IV and has rightly been disqualified by the tendering authority."

"We are unable to trace any element of arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity in the tendering authority adjudging Respondent No.3 as technically qualified."

"It is well settled law that the comparison of financial bids can be made only if the bidders satisfy the tender eligibility criteria."

Also Read: Allegations Inherently Improbable And Vague | Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Woman | FIR Lodged After 7 Years Held Abuse Of Process

"The Petitioner cannot now be permitted to rely upon additional documents after completion of the tender process."

"Considering the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that Petitioner is unable to demonstrate any element of arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity in the actions of the tendering authority in implementing the impugned tender process."

"Therefore, there is no warrant for interference at the instance of the Petitioner who is found to have raised a false defence in rejoinder disentitling it from invoking discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

"The petition is otherwise devoid of merits. The petition accordingly fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Thakker, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Desai, Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Adarsh Jain, Ms. Daksha Punghera and Mr. Digvijay Kachare, instructed by Desai Legal LLP

For the Respondents: Mr. Shardul Singh with Ms. Sayali Sawant, Mr. Hridyanshi Sharma and Mr. Ninad Thikekar; Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, Mr. Aditya Mhase, Mr. Manish Kelkar and Mr. Anshuman Sambre

Case Title: Anik Industries Ltd. v. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:9512-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition (L.) No. 6662 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Sandeep V. Marne