The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.33546 of 2025 M/s. Budharaja Mining and Construction Limited -versus- Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar and others …. Petitioner Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Avijit Pal, Advocate …. Opposite parties Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 01.12.2025 01. 1. The bid submitted by the petitioner is rejected at the technical bid stage as it did not meet the eligibility
Legal Reasoning
criteria enshrined under Clause-4.1.13 of the tender document.1 2. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the tender floated by the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited for “Selection of Mine Operator for Unchabali (Mahaparbhat) Iron Ore Mine through Reverse Auction bidding process” and annexed the experience certificate as envisaged under the clause-4.1 of the tender 1 Clause 4.1.3 of Request for Proposal No. 192/OMC/P&T/2025 dated 10.09.2025 floated by the Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. stands as follows: “4.1.3 The Bidder whose contract/agreement with OMC had been terminated within preceding 3 (three) years from the date of this RfP will not be eligible to take part in the Bidding Process. For the avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that the above ineligibility shall not affect and disentitle a Bidder from submitting the Bid if the termination of the contract/agreement with OMC is not attributable to the said Bidder.” Page 1 of 8 document, which according to the petitioner, exceeds the pecuniary limits set forth in clause-4.1.1 of the tender document. According to the petitioner, the authorities have mechanically rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner without considering that it had enough experience in executing the “similar nature of work” and in fact had completed the work much above the value as set forth in clause-4.1.1 of the tender document. 3. Clause-4.1.1 is quoted for the purpose of considering the points so raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, which runs thus: “4.1 Technical Criteria: 4.1.1. A) The Bidder shall have successfully executed similar works for the Considered Mineral, for a minimum amount of INR 11.68 Cr in case of a single work or INR 19.46 Cr in case of 2 (two) works in any one of the immediately preceding 10 (ten) financial years excluding the year of floating of this RfP. OR B) The Bidder shall have successfully executed similar works for the Considered Mineral, for a minimum production not less than 3 lakh MT from any of its single opencast mine or a minimum production not less than 5 lakh MT from any of its two opencast mines, in any one of the immediately preceding 10(ten) financial years excluding the year of floating of this RfP. Page 2 of 8 “SIMILAR WORK” shall mean drilling, excavation, transportation of Ore/Waste done as part of a single contract, for the Considered Mineral by engaging required manpower and machineries. “CONSIDERED MINERAL” shall mean Iron, Chrome, Manganese, Bauxite, Coal/Lignite or any other minerals (excluding minor minerals as per Mines and Minerals its (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and subsequent amendments) ” 3.1. It is manifest from bare reading of the aforesaid clause that “bidder” should have executed “similar work” for a minimum amount of Rs.11.68 crores in case of a single work and Rs.19.46 crores in case of two works in any one of the immediately preceding ten financial years. The “similar work” as defined does not invite any ambiguity and/or discrepancy in understanding the same. 4. The point which voiced out in the instant case, whether the experience gained by the petitioner and the work executed as a constituent of the joint venture can be counted and/or taken as the eligibility criteria as enshrined in the said clause. 5. Clause-4.1.13 of the tender document is a repository of the consideration to be undertaken by the authority for the eligibility to participate in the said tender process both on the basis of the experience and the other criteria of a Company (Private or Public) or a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). Clause-4.1.6 expanded the definition of “bidder” by including the partnership firm or a Company or the LLP. The “bidder” is also defined in the Page 3 of 8 said document in Clause-2.3 of the tender document to mean the single corporate entity incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 or 1956 or 2013, in existence at least four years prior to the date of the said RfP or a registered partnership firm within the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and must have the existence at least four years prior to the date of RfP or an LLP registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and in existence at least four years prior to the date of RfP. The moment the word “BIDDER” is defined in the tender document, whereafter such word is appearing, it must be assigned and/or ascribed the same meaning and the Court shall eschew any external aid in understanding the meaning of the said word or the expression. Once it includes a single corporate entity, it must be a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and must have executed the work of a value as provided therein. The segregation of the work done by the petitioner as a constituent of the joint venture along with the other cannot be said to be a work executed as a “single entity”, but the collective work and, therefore, the moment the bid is restricted amongst the bidder, who is either corporate entity or private limited company or the LLP, it is not open to the Tendering Committee to take a departure therefrom. 6. The Centre under another tender floated by the Eastern Coal Field Limited included the experience in percentage share as a member of the joint venture, which cannot be Page 4 of 8 applied to the instant case. It is open to the Tender Issuing Authorities to incorporate certain terms and conditions. The author of the tender document is the best person not only to include any terms and conditions but also to interpret the said terms and conditions and, therefore, any external aid from the other tender issued by a different entity cannot be a guiding factor nor can be included impliedly in the existing tender. 6.1. It is well-settled that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by the Court in judicial review proceedings. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vrs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, it has been held: to defer courts must “15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” Page 5 of 8 In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vrs. AMR Dev Prabha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 335, under the heading “Deference to authority’s interpretation”, the Supreme Court stated: It is obvious “51. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another fundamental problem. that Respondent No. 1 seeks to only enforce terms of the NIT. Inherent in such exercise is interpretation of contractual terms. However, it must be noted that judicial interpretation of contractsin the sphere of commerce stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting statutes. 52. In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and India have laid recourse to Clauses of the NIT, whether it be to justify condonation of delay of Respondent No. 6 in submitting performance bank guarantees or their decision to resume auction on grounds of failure. BCCL having authored these documents, is better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them. (Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vrs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818). technical 53. The High Court ought to have deferred to this understanding, unless it was patently perverse or mala fide. Given how BCCL’s interpretation of these clauses was plausible and not absurd, solely differences in opinion of contractual interpretation ought not to have been grounds for the High Court to come to a finding that the appellant committed illegality.” In Silppi Constructions Contractors Vrs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133, it is held as follows: Page 6 of 8 justify judicial intervention “20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest in matters of to contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court’s interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.” interfere The Supreme Court has reiterated the above principles in Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Resoursys Telecom, (2022) 18 SCR 861; Om Gurusai Construction Company Vrs. V.N. Reddy, (2023) 11 SCR 379. 6.2. Once the exclusion is evident and the experience in a percentage share with respect to joint venture is not incorporated in the document, there is no illegality and/or infirmity in the decision of the authority in rejecting the bid submitted by the petitioner at the technical bid stage as the experience of a joint venture cannot be said to be an experience of a single entity as defined in the “bidder”. Page 7 of 8 7.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. But there shall be no order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Dec-2025 10:54:01 Page 8 of 8