BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. versus BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 04-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 425 : 2024 INSC 757
Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. 
v. 
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024)
04 October 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the 
technical bid of the appellant, while accepting the technical bid of 
the respondent no. 8-Company, and declaring it to be successful 
bidder, though the respondent no. 8 had not complied with the 
mandatory requirement of submitting the important documents 
relating to the qualification criteria as contained in Clause 10 of 
the Notice Inviting Tender-NIT.
Headnotes†
Government Contracts – Judicial Intervention – Scope of – 
Tender for mega project – Respondent no. 1-BCCL, a public 
sector undertaking floated tender – Appellant participated in 
the Tender, however,   declared to be technically disqualified on 
the ground that it did not comply with the Clause 10 of NIT, as 
regards power of attorney for signing of bid – Respondent no. 
8 Company declared successful bidder – Aggrieved, appellant 
filed the writ petition on the ground that the respondent no.8 
had not submitted the scanned copies of the Audited balance 
sheets required to be submitted as per Clause 10 NIT in 
relation to the financial capacity, while submitting/uploading 
the tender documents and it was only when clarification 
was sought from the respondent No.8 about the shortfall of 
documents, the said Audited balance sheets were submitted 
after the technical bids were opened – High Court dismissed 
the writ petition, confirming the decision of the technical bid 
committee of the respondent rejecting the technical bid of the 
appellant, while accepting the technical bid of the respondent 
no. 8 – Challenge to:
* Author
426
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Government bodies/instrumentalities are expected to act in 
absolutely fair, reasonable and transparent manner, particularly 
in the award of contracts for Mega projects – Any element of 
arbitrariness or discrimination may lead to hampering of the entire 
project which would not be in the public interest – Court does not 
sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and 
it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; 
and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a 
freedom of entering into the contracts – However, the decision of 
the government/instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness 
and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides – 
Right to equality u/Art.14 abhors arbitrariness – Public authorities 
have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are 
shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding 
process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner – On 
facts, the power of attorney was duly executed in favour of the 
donee, the signatory of the documents, and was duly not arised 
before its submission along with other important documents 
required to be submitted as per the NIT by the appellant, before 
the last date of submission fixed by the respondent – Hence,  
no legal or justifiable ground to reject the technical bid of the 
appellant – Action of the respondent in rejecting the technical 
bid of the appellant on absolutely extraneous ground and 
accepting the technical bid of the respondent no.8 though 
submitted in utter non-compliance of the mandatory requirement 
of Clause 10 NIT, and subsequently calling upon the respondent 
no.8 to furnish the shortfall of documents after the opening 
of technical bids of the bidders, totally arbitrary and illegal –  
Furthermore, it cannot be said that the project being 
Infrastructure project and also one of the Mega projects, this 
Court may not interfere more particularly in view of the fact 
that agreement has already been entered into between the 
respondent and the Special Purpose Vehicle of respondent no.8 –  
Impugned decision of the respondent rejecting the technical bid 
of the appellant and further declaring the respondent no.8 as 
successful bidder grossly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and 
violative of Art.14, thus, set aside – Any action/process undertaken 
or agreement entered into pursuant to the said decision also set 
aside. [Paras 19-21, 29, 30]
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
427
Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.  
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others
Case Law Cited
Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M & N Publicatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.