Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)
Order Date: 23 June 2026
Case Overview
- Appeal (M.A.T. No. 1537 of 2025, IA No. CAN 1 of 2025) filed by Sarlal Engineering Limited & Anr. against Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) challenging a limited tender for procurement of high‑chrome grinding media balls for BBD‑type coal mills at MTPS (Units 1‑6).
- The original order dated 3 September 2025 (WPA 20870 of 2025) dismissed the writ petition, holding that DVC could independently fix tender terms and limit participation to three vendors enlisted with National Power Corporation Limited (NTPC).
- DVC’s procurement policy: use NTPC’s vendor enlistment (six vendors) because DVC lacked its own list and sought reliable, high‑quality suppliers. An agreement with NTPC provided consultancy and access to its vendor portal.
- Estimated contract value entered in NTPC portal: ₹16,41,67,570 (≈ ₹16.42 crore). Only three of the six NTPC‑enlisted vendors met the financial‑capacity threshold; the appellant’s execution capability was ₹13,85,98,360, below the estimated value, so it was excluded.
- The RFQ was published on 22 August 2025 on the GeM portal as a limited tender with e‑reverse auction. The three eligible vendors participated; Blue Star Malleable Private Limited was awarded the contract and work is in progress.
- Appellant argued the limitation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the RFQ which did not state a financial‑capacity criterion; claimed violation of Article 14 and sought a re‑tender.
- DVC contended the limited tender was a commercial decision, supported by a notice on its website (12 March 2025) and a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 9 May 2025, which required vendors to meet turnover and execution‑capacity criteria relative to the estimated cost.
- The Court examined extensive case law (e.g., Maa Binda Express Carrier, Tata Cellular, Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corp. Ltd. vs Kerala Ayurvedic Cooperative Society, etc.) affirming that limited tenders are permissible where justified, and that courts intervene only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala‑fide intent, or violation of fairness.
- The Court found DVC’s policy transparent, the financial‑capacity filter applied uniformly via the NTPC portal, and no evidence of bias or illegal exclusion.
Final Outcome
- The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upheld the Single Judge’s order, and confirmed the legality of DVC’s limited tender.
- The contract awarded to Blue Star Malleable Private Limited remains valid; the procurement of 2,177 MT of high‑chrome grinding media balls continues.
- No direction for re‑tendering was issued.
Topics: Tender Procurement, Judicial Review, Power Sector