Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) – Appellate Side

Order Date: 23 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (W.P.A. No. 20067/2026) challenged SAIL’s decision to declare him technically disqualified from Tender No. GEM/2026/B/7121849, which concerned SMS slag handling, evacuation, cleaning, loading, transportation, and processing of scrap, mill scale, slag, etc., at the Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP).
  • Eligibility Clause 3(b) required two similar work orders/MOU/Agreement each costing not less than INR 20.25 Crores (without GST) and covering both handling and processing activities.
  • Petitioner submitted two sets of documents:
  • Handling experience: three work orders VJNR/111500/SER/R/4500126686 (2 May 2021), VJNR/111500/SER/R/4500141281 (5 May 2022), VJNR/111500/SER/R/4500163802 (5 June 2023) – cumulative value INR 45.781 Crores.
  • Processing experience: four work orders VJNR/111500/SER/R/4500129091 (16 June 2021), VJNR/111500/SER/R/4500137261 (11 Feb 2022), VJNR/111500/SER/R/4500142324 (11 May 2022), VJNR/111500/SER/R/4500190284 (26 July 2024) – cumulative value INR 29.858 Crores.
  • SAIL accepted the three handling work orders (all bearing “111500”) as a composite contract but rejected the four processing work orders because they lacked the common “111500” reference, had different job names, and showed no inter‑linkage; two of them contained “111670”.
  • DSP sought clarification on 20 April 2026; petitioner requested larger file‑upload size on 22 April 2026 and later uploaded documents in two parts. DSP again sought clarification on 6 June 2026 for the second set; petitioner did not reply, leading to “Expired” status on GeM and disqualification on 29 June 2026.
  • Petitioner’s representation on 30 June 2026 claimed the four processing work orders formed a single contract, but no response was given to DSP’s queries.
  • Respondent argued that the processing work orders did not satisfy Clause 3(b) because they did not demonstrate processing experience together with handling, and that the petitioner suppressed material facts by not responding to GeM queries or disclosing the 29 June 2026 disqualification order.
  • The court noted that the “Similar Work” definition in Clause 3(i) requires a single work order/MOU/Agreement covering both processing and handling activities; the petitioner’s two separate sets did not meet this requirement.
  • Reference was made to a similar tender at IISCO Steel Plant where the petitioner had been qualified, but the court found that IISCO’s documents did not define “similar work” and therefore could not be relied upon.
  • The court also considered statutory provisions under the Specific Relief Act and relevant environmental guidelines, but concluded they did not affect the eligibility assessment.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court found no illegality in SAIL’s technical disqualification and dismissed the writ petition (W.P.A. No. 20067/2026) on 23 September 2026, leaving the disqualification order dated 29 June 2026 in force.

Topics: Legal Dispute – Tender Eligibility, Steel Industry Procurement