Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 02/09/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s United Air Express (partnership) represented by partner Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sonthalia; Respondents – 1) Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and its officials, 2) Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, 3) General Manager, Contract Cell Works, Bokaro Steel Plant, 4) Deputy General Manager, Contract Cell Works, Bokaro Steel Plant, 5) Assistant General Manager, Contract Cell Works, Bokaro Steel Plant, and 6) FSNL Private Limited.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Petition under Article 226 seeking judicial review of SAIL’s decision to deem United Air Express “technically not eligible” for a reverse auction and to set aside the award to FSNL Private Limited (L1).
  • Background: SAIL issued Bid Invitation No. W06/4010034183/7000020135 on 04‑11‑2025 for “Comprehensive Outsourcing Services – MRD” at Bokaro Steel Plant, later modified on 06‑12‑2025. Eligibility required either three works ≥40% of reference value, two works ≥50%, or one work ≥80% (original) – later changed to 30%, 37.5%, and 60% respectively. The reference value was Rs 23,59,46,195.32 (original) and Rs 35,39,19,292.98 (modified).
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: United Air Express submitted two work orders from Tata Steel (2018 and 2021) with a combined value of Rs 55,18,77,901.95, arguing that together they constitute a single integrated project satisfying the “single work” requirement. It claimed the exclusion of the word “hot” in the modified eligibility criteria removed the need for hot‑slag experience.
  • Respondent’s Position: SAIL’s Evaluation Committee held the petitioner technically ineligible, stating the work orders did not constitute a single work and did not meet the “excavation of slag pit and processing in a single work order” criterion. The petitioner was given three opportunities (emails dated 11‑03‑2026, 21‑03‑2026, 26‑03‑2026) to clarify, which it availed but the Committee remained unsatisfied.
  • Legal Arguments: Petitioner relied on Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Utpadan Mandi Parishad (2025) and Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (2024) asserting arbitrariness and violation of Article 14. Respondent cited Supreme Court precedents (Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL‑SML, Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metrol Rail Corp.) emphasizing limited scope of judicial review in procurement matters.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The bench examined the eligibility clauses, the petitioner’s evidence, and the procedural safeguards (three clarification opportunities). It held that the Evaluation Committee’s interpretation of “single work” and the quantitative thresholds was within its expertise. No mala‑fide, bias, or procedural violation was established. The court reiterated that judicial review concerns legality, not merits, and that the decision was not perverse, irrational, or beyond the scope of reasonableness.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order for costs is made.
  • Any interim applications pending in the petition are disposed of.
  • United Air Express is not entitled to participate in a fresh reverse auction.

Topics: Judicial Review, Public Procurement