Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid in a tender process for lease of Plot No. 18, Sector 22, MIHAN SEZ, Nagpur, and the consequent allotment to Respondent No.3. The petitioner, Anik Industries Ltd, sought a declaration that it was technically qualified and challenged the Letter of Allotment issued to Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, had floated a fresh tender on 10 October 2024 after cancelling an earlier one due to lukewarm response. The corrigendum altered technical eligibility criteria and extended the bid submission date to 18 November 2024. The petitioner submitted its bid, but the Technical Committee on 29 November 2024 disqualified it for failure to submit information as per Exhibit-IV and non-compliance of experience certificate of construction of residential/commercial project with at least 6 lakh square feet built-up area. Respondent No.3 was declared the highest bidder at Rs. 8,407 per sq.m., and Letter of Acceptance was issued on 2 December 2024. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act and made representations, alleging forged documents by Respondent No.3. The petitioner argued that rejection was arbitrary and hypertechnical, that Exhibit-IV was not mandatory, and that the experience certificate was wrongly rejected due to the term 'Assembly' in West Bengal certificates. It also challenged Respondent No.3's eligibility, alleging false architect certificates and incomplete construction. Respondents defended the rejection as based on mandatory requirements and contended that the petitioner suppressed the corrigendum and Exhibit-IV format. The court heard arguments on 18 June 2025 and reserved judgment. On 10 March 2025, the court directed that further action on allotment would be subject to the final outcome. The final decision is not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Technical Bid Rejection - Non-submission of summary format Exhibit-IV - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner challenged rejection for failure to submit information as per Exhibit-IV, contending it was ancillary and not mandatory; reliance on Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Shalby Limited v. State of Goa; Court considered whether non-submission of ancillary documents can be ground for rejection (Paras 6-7).
B) Tender Law - Experience Criteria - Built-up area of 6 lakh sq ft for residential/commercial construction - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Petitioner claimed erroneous rejection due to use of 'Assembly' in West Bengal certificates, arguing RERA certificate showed residential and commercial use; Court examined whether experience certificate fulfilled criteria (Paras 7-8).
C) Tender Law - Eligibility of Successful Bidder - Alleged forged documents by Respondent No.3 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner alleged Respondent No.3 relied on false architect certificate; questioned eligibility; reliance on Banshidhar Construction Private Limited v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited; Court considered whether bidder eligibility can be challenged despite own rejection (Paras 8-9).
D) Tender Law - Financial Loss - Higher bid and public interest - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner argued its higher quote would have benefited respondents, causing loss of Rs.22 crores; Court considered whether public interest required interference (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was arbitrary, irrational, and perverse; whether Respondent No.3 was eligible and its allotment should be set aside; and whether the court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 82
Writ Petition (L.) No. 6662 of 2025
Alok Aradhe, CJ, Sandeep V. Marne, J
Nitin Thakker, Senior Advocate with Abhijeet Desai, Vijay Singh, Adarsh Jain, Daksha Punghera, Digvijay Kachare; Shardul Singh with Sayali Sawant, Hridyanshi Sharma, Ninad Thikekar; Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate and Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate with Pralhad Paranjape, Aditya Mhase, Manish Kelkar, Anshuman Sambre
Anik Industries Ltd, through its Authorized Representative Mr. Arvind Jain
1. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, through Vice Chairman & Managing Director; 2. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, through its Tender Committee; 3. M/s Kukreja Infrastructures
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of technical bid in tender for lease of plot.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the petitioner is technically qualified and challenge to the Letter of Allotment issued to Respondent No.3.
Filing Reason
Rejection of petitioner's technical bid for alleged failure to submit information as per Exhibit-IV and non-compliance of experience certificate; allegation of forged documents by Respondent No.3.
Previous Decisions
Technical Committee report dated 29 November 2024 disqualified petitioner; Letter of Acceptance issued to Respondent No.3 on 2 December 2024; representation rejected on 22 January 2025; interim order dated 10 March 2025 by court directing further action subject to outcome.
Issues
Whether the rejection of petitioner's technical bid was arbitrary, irrational and perverse.
Whether non-submission of summary in Exhibit-IV format was a valid ground for rejection when supporting documents were provided.
Whether the experience certificate of petitioner fulfilled the requirement of 6 lakh sq ft built-up area for residential/commercial construction.
Whether Respondent No.3 was eligible to participate and its bid should have been disqualified for allegedly relying on false architect certificates.
Whether the court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in tender matters.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that rejection was hypertechnical; Exhibit-IV was ancillary and not mandatory; supporting documents already contained required information.
Petitioner argued that the only change in new Exhibit-IV was from 'land area' to 'built-up area', and mistake of using old format should be condoned.
Petitioner relied on Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Shalby Limited v. State of Goa to argue that non-submission of ancillary documents cannot be ground for rejection.
Petitioner alleged that use of word 'Assembly' in West Bengal certificates was misconstrued and RERA certificate showed residential and commercial use.
Petitioner challenged Respondent No.3's eligibility, alleging false architect certificate and incomplete construction; relied on Banshidhar Construction Private Limited v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
Petitioner argued that its higher bid of Rs. 12,889/sq.m compared to Respondent No.3's Rs. 8,407/sq.m would have benefited respondents, causing loss of Rs.22 crores.
Respondents 1&2 contended that rejection was justified because submission in Exhibit-IV format was mandatory as per corrigendum; petitioner suppressed corrigendum and claimed ignorance.
Respondents 1&2 submitted that petitioner took benefit of extended bid date but cannot feign ignorance of corrigendum requirements.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in rejecting its technical bid in the tender process initiated for allotment of lease of plot of land.
The Technical Committee evaluated the bids and prepared a report dated 29 November 2024, in which it was found that the Petitioner and M/s. R. Sandesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had failed to submit the requisite documents and therefore they were disqualified.
Mr. Thakker, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would submit that rejection of Petitioner’s bid by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is wholly arbitrary, irrational and perverse.
Procedural History
In September 2024, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 initiated tender for leasing Plot No. 18, Sector 22, MIHAN, Nagpur. First tender closed on 26 September 2024 with three bidders, excluding Respondent No.3. Due to lukewarm response and CVC guidelines, tender was cancelled. Fresh tender floated on 10 October 2024 with last date 5 November 2024. Pre-bid meeting held, corrigendum issued altering technical eligibility criteria and extending last date to 18 November 2024. Petitioner submitted bid on 18 November 2024. Technical Committee report dated 29 November 2024 disqualified petitioner and one other, while three entities qualified including Respondent No.3. Bids opened, Respondent No.3 highest bidder at Rs.8,407 per sq.m. Letter of Acceptance issued to Respondent No.3 on 2 December 2024. Petitioner filed RTI application and representation on 2 December 2024. Respondent No.3 paid first installment of Rs.12,10,18,141. Petitioner received Technical Evaluation Report on 6 January 2025 showing rejection reasons. On 14 January 2025, petitioner complained alleging forged documents by Respondent No.3. On 22 January 2025, respondents informed petitioner of rejection due to non-fulfillment of technical criteria. Petitioner filed writ petition on 26 February 2025. On 10 March 2025, court directed that further action on allotment be subject to petition outcome. Judgment reserved on 18 June 2025 and pronounced on 26 June 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016:
