Summary and Analysis of Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt Ltd vs Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co Ltd & Anr 2025 INSC 1085
1. Heading of the Judgment
Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1085
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: September 09, 2025
2. Related Laws, Rules, and Clauses
The judgment revolves entirely around the interpretation of specific clauses in a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the respondent. The key clauses analyzed are:
Clause 5(D) - "Past Experience": This clause allowed bidders to use the past experience of a previous consortium or Joint Venture (JV). It specified that the experience would be considered proportionate to the bidder's share if defined in the Consortium Agreement; otherwise, it would be attributed to the lead partner. It mandated the submission of a work execution certificate from the customer and, if applicable, a satisfactory performance certificate from MPPGCL.
Clause 8.1 - "Instructions regarding shortfall documents": This was a critical clause that strictly prohibited bidders from submitting any documents after the bid submission deadline. It stated that bids with incomplete documents "shall be rejected" and that no "shortfall window" would be created.
Clause 8.8: This clause reserved the right of the tendering authority (MPPGCL) to "seek such additional information as it may deem fit to satisfy itself of the eligibility of the bidder." This was a non-obstante clause, meaning it operated despite anything else stated in the tender.
Clause 5(B) - "Details of Washery": This clause required the bidder to have its own washery with a minimum spare washing capacity of 5 Lakh Metric Tonnes (LMT) located near the specified mines.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Parties:
Appellant: Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. (a disqualified bidder).
Respondent No. 1: Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL, the tendering authority).
Respondent No. 2: Rukhmai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the successful bidder).Core Dispute: The appellant was disqualified at the technical bid stage for the alleged non-submission of a Joint Venture (JV) agreement, which the tender evaluation committee deemed necessary to prove its proportionate share in a previous consortium whose experience it was relying on.
High Court's Decision: The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the disqualification. It agreed that the JV agreement was mandatory and further held that even if submitted, the appellant would be disqualified under Clause 5(B) because its washery was exclusively committed to another party (Maharashtra State Mining Corporation - MSMC).
Issue before Supreme Court: Whether the tender conditions mandated the submission of the JV agreement itself, and whether the High Court was correct in upholding the disqualification and introducing a new ground for rejection not originally cited by the evaluation committee.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. Its reasoning is divided into two clear parts, addressing each ground of disqualification.
Part I: On Disqualification under Clause 5(D) for Non-Submission of JV Agreement
The Court held that the appellant's disqualification on this ground was illegal and arbitrary. Its reasoning was as follows:
Plain Reading of the Clause: The Court emphasized that tender conditions must be interpreted strictly and cannot be read to include hidden requirements. A plain reading of Clause 5(D) showed that it required a work execution certificate from the customer to prove past experience. It did not explicitly state that the JV agreement itself had to be submitted.
Appellant's Compliance: The appellant had fully complied by submitting a detailed work execution certificate from MSMC. This certificate explicitly stated that the appellant was a 45% partner in the JV (Hind Maha Mineral LLP) as per an agreement dated 02.12.2019, and detailed the substantial work it had executed.
Tendering Authority's Duty: The Court held that if the tendering authority (MPPGCL) had any doubt about the veracity of the certificate, it had the power and the duty to seek clarification. Clause 8.8 of the NIT expressly gave it the right to "seek such additional information as it may deem fit" to verify eligibility. Instead of using this power to call for the JV agreement for verification, MPPGCL arbitrarily rejected the bid for not submitting it upfront.
Rejection of Mala Fide Argument: The Court rejected the argument that the appellant acted with mala fide intent by "suppressing" the agreement. Since the tender did not mandate its submission, there was no obligation to submit it, and thus, no question of suppression.
Conclusion on Part I: The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the tender evaluation committee and the High Court on this point, holding that the rejection was contrary to the terms of the NIT.
Part II: On Disqualification under Clause 5(B) for Washery Capacity
The Court took strong exception to the High Court's handling of this issue.
Beyond the Committee's Reasoning: The tender evaluation committee had never disqualified the appellant under Clause 5(B). This was a new ground raised for the first time by the successful bidder (R-2) in its written arguments before the High Court.
Violation of Natural Justice: The Supreme Court held that it was impermissible for the High Court to "traverse beyond the reasons given by the Committee" and disqualify the appellant on a fresh ground without giving the appellant a proper opportunity to contest it. This was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Contentious Factual Dispute: The issue of whether the appellant's washery had the requisite spare capacity, considering its commitments to MSMC, involved a complex factual inquiry. The High Court was wrong to decide such a contentious issue without a proper evidentiary record and without the appellant having a chance to present its case.
Conclusion on Part II: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's findings on Clause 5(B). However, since this was a vital eligibility criterion, the Court remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide this specific issue afresh after giving both parties a full opportunity to present their arguments and evidence.
The Supreme Court's Final Direction
The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.
The appellant's disqualification under Clause 5(D) was quashed.
The matter was sent back (remanded) to the High Court to exclusively determine whether the appellant met the eligibility criteria under Clause 5(B) regarding washery spare capacity.
The High Court was directed to decide this issue within two months.
The work order awarded to the second respondent was to remain subject to the outcome of this fresh determination.
In-Depth Analysis
This judgment reinforces several cornerstone principles of government tender jurisprudence:
Certainty and Transparency: Tender conditions must be explicit and unambiguous. Authorities cannot add hidden requirements or interpret clauses in a way that introduces new, unstated obligations for bidders.
Procedural Fairness: The tendering authority must act fairly. If a bidder has submitted documents that ostensibly meet the criteria, the authority must use its power to seek clarification if in doubt, rather than resorting to summary rejection.
Limits of Judicial Review: While courts can review the decision-making process, they must not substitute their own reasoning for that of the expert administrative body (the tender committee). A court cannot uphold a decision on grounds that were not originally taken by the authority, especially without giving the affected party a chance to be heard.
Non-Obstante Clauses are Key: The judgment highlights the importance of every clause in a tender document. While Clause 8.1 was strict, Clause 8.8 provided a crucial flexibility to the authority to verify information, which it failed to use. The Court's interpretation harmonized these clauses instead of letting one nullify the other.
In essence, the Supreme Court ensured that the appellant's bid was evaluated on a level playing field, based strictly on the published rules of the game, and not rejected on a technicality that wasn't in the rulebook or on a new ground it never had a chance to defend.