Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 04.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Offshore Infrastructures Limited (represented by Vice‑President Mahendra Singh Rathore). Respondents – (1) State of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department (through its Secretary, Engineer‑In‑Chief, Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer) and (5) Dilip Buildcon Limited (through its Director).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the legality, validity and constitutional propriety of Clause 1.3(b) of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 01/SAC/2026‑27 dated 13‑05‑2026, the subsequent disqualification of the petitioner’s technical bid (email dated 23‑07‑2026), and the opening of financial bids that declared Dilip Buildcon Limited as L‑1 bidder on 27‑07‑2026.
  • Tender Details: Project – “Construction of Sikasar to Kodar Reservoir Link Canal (Pipeline) under Pairy Project Scheme”. Estimated value – ₹2,54,986.22 Lakhs (≈ ₹2,549.86 Cr) exclusive of GST; construction period – 30 months plus 5 years O&M.
  • Key Tender Clauses: Clause 1.3(a) – financial capability based on maximum civil‑engineering work executed in any one FY of the preceding five years (≈ ₹1,019.94 Cr). Clause 1.3(b) – requires average annual turnover of not less than two times the estimated cost (≈ ₹5,099.72 Cr) and cumulative payments from similar works equal to the probable contract amount. Clause 4 – mandatory completion of prescribed experience; Clause 12 – affidavit in prescribed format (Annexure‑XI); Clause 5.0 – disqualification for incomplete or non‑standard information.
  • Procedural Timeline:
  • 13‑05‑2026 – NIT issued.
  • 25‑05‑2026 – Corrigendum revising schedule.
  • 01‑06‑2026 – Pre‑bid conference (petitioner did not attend).
  • 15‑06‑2026 – Petitioner submitted technical bid online.
  • 23‑07‑2026 – Email disqualifying petitioner’s technical bid on three grounds (non‑compliance with Clause 1.3(b), improper Annexure‑XI, insufficient cumulative payments).
  • 27‑07‑2026 – Petitioner filed detailed representation; same day financial bids opened and Dilip Buildcon declared L‑1 bidder.
  • 29‑07‑2026 – Earlier writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2026) considered; petitioner withdrew with liberty to challenge subsequent developments.
  • 04‑08‑2026 – Present writ petition (W.P. No. 4026 of 2026) heard and decided.
  • Petitioner’s Relief Sought: Quash Clause 1.3(b) (certiorari), set aside pre‑bid conference minutes, cancel the 23‑07‑2026 disqualification email, direct consideration of technical bid without Clause 1.3(b), quash opening of financial bids and L‑1 award to respondent 5, and other consequential directions.
  • Respondents’ Submissions: The State argued that the court cannot rewrite commercial tender terms; the eligibility criteria were deliberately framed after considering project specifics; the petitioner failed to raise objections at the pre‑bid conference; non‑compliance with mandatory Annexure‑XI and Clause 1.3(b) justified disqualification; no allegation of mala‑fide or bias was substantiated. Dilip Buildcon’s counsel echoed the State’s position, asserting that its technical eligibility was properly evaluated.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision‑making process for arbitrariness, irrationality, mala‑fide or violation of Article 14; it does not permit the court to substitute its own commercial judgment.
  • The tendering authority is the “best judge” of its eligibility criteria; the requirement of turnover twice the project cost, though stricter than in other departmental tenders, is not per se unconstitutional.
  • Petitioner did not participate in the pre‑bid conference and therefore cannot rely on objections raised by other bidders.
  • Petitioner submitted Annexure‑XI in a non‑prescribed format, contrary to Clause 12; the tender expressly mandates strict compliance, and substantial compliance is insufficient.
  • Clause 1.3(a) and Clause 1.3(b) are cumulative, not alternative; the petitioner cannot treat Clause 1.3(b) as optional.
  • No factual basis was provided to show that Clause 1.3(b) was inserted to favour Dilip Buildcon; no officer was impleaded, and allegations of favouritism remain speculative.
  • The technical evaluation of Dilip Buildcon’s experience (including the DBL‑SIPL joint‑venture) was within the domain of the expert Tender Evaluation Committee and was not shown to be perverse or contrary to the tender.
  • Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Banshidhar Construction v. Bharat Coking Coal, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa) reaffirm that courts may only intervene where the process is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala‑fide. None of these conditions were satisfied.
  • Final Outcome: The writ petition is dismissed in its entirety. All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Topics: Public Procurement, Judicial Review, Tender Eligibility