Holding

The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) for non‑submission of the JV agreement was unlawful and set aside the High Court’s order, while remanding the question of spare washery capacity under Clause 5(B) for fresh consideration.

Summary

The appellant, Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd., submitted a technical bid for a coal beneficiation tender but was disqualified by the Tender Evaluation Committee for not furnishing a Joint Venture (JV) agreement as required under Clause 5(D) of the NIT. The High Court upheld this disqualification and additionally held that the appellant would have been disqualified under Clause 5(B) for lacking spare washery capacity, despite the issue not being raised before the Committee. The Supreme Court examined whether Clause 5(D) obliges a bidder to submit the JV agreement and found that the work‑execution certificate submitted by the appellant sufficiently demonstrated its 45% share in the consortium, making the non‑submission of the JV agreement an invalid ground for disqualification. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s decision on Clause 5(D) and remanded the matter to determine the appellant’s spare washery capacity under Clause 5(B). The appeal was partly allowed, with the order of the High Court overturned and the issue of washery capacity referred back for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) of the NIT for not furnishing the JV agreement is justified.
Whether Clause 5(D) of the NIT expressly requires submission of the JV agreement to establish proportionate share in a consortium.
Whether the High Court erred in additionally disqualifying the appellant under Clause 5(B) concerning spare washery capacity without giving the appellant an opportunity to contest.
Whether the Committee’s decision can be set aside on the ground of misinterpretation of the NIT provisions.

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the decision of the High Court to uphold the appellant-bidder’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) for not furnishing Joint Venture agreement justified; and whether the appellant would have stood disqualified since exclusively committed to the State Mining Corporation. Headnotes† Tender – Notice inviting tender – Clause (5)D and Clause (5)B – Disqualification – 1st respondent invited Tender for coal beneficiation and managing logistics for Thermal Power Project –

Subjects

DisqualificationClause 5(D) of the NITNon furnishing JV agreementWasheriesTenderNotice inviting tenderClause 5(B) of the NITCoal beneficiationTechnical evaluationJoint Venture agreementState Mining Corporation

Judgment

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 528 : 2025 INSC 1085

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd.
v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 11726 of 2025)
09 September 2025
[Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the decision of the High Court to uphold
the appellant-bidder’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) for not
furnishing Joint Venture agreement justified; and whether the
appellant would have stood disqualified since its washeries had
been exclusively committed to the State Mining Corporation.

Headnotes†
Tender – Notice inviting tender – Clause (5)D and Clause (5)B –
Disqualification – 1st respondent invited Tender for coal
beneficiation and managing logistics for Thermal Power
Project – Appellant and others submitted their bid – However,
the appellant-bidder was disqualified during technical
evaluation by the Committee due to non-submission of
credentials as per Clause No.(5)D of the NIT-non-filing of Joint
Venture agreement – Decision of the Committee challenged by
the appellant – High Court upheld the disqualification of the
appellant by the Committee for non-compliance of Clause 5(D)
of the NIT and also held that even if the JV agreement had
been submitted, the appellant would have stood disqualified
since its washeries had been exclusively committed to the
State Mining Corporation – Correctness:
Held: 1st respondent acted contrary to the terms of the NIT and
unfairly rejected the appellant’s bid for non-production of JV
agreement although Clause 5(D) did not prescribe production of
such agreement as mandatory to rely on past-experience of such
consortium in which the bidder had a defined proportionate share –
Decision of the Committee, upheld by the High Court as per Clause
5(D) liable to be set aside – Issue as regards washery capacity is
a contentious one and ought not to have been decided by the High
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 529

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Court without giving opportunity to the appellant to controvert the
same – High Court also lost sight of the fact that the Committee
had not adverted to this issue and it was impermissible for it to
travel beyond the reasons given by the Committee and disqualify
the appellant – Allotment of work order to 2nd respondent has been
made subject to the outcome of this proceeding – Matter remand
for a fresh consideration whether appellant had requisite spare
washing capacity as per Clause 5(B) of the NIT and the validity
of the work order in favour of the 2nd respondent in light of such
decision – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set
aside. [Paras 20, 21, 24-26]

List of Keywords
Disqualification; Clause 5(D) of the NIT; Non furnishing JV
agreement; Washeries; Tender; Notice inviting tender; Clause
(5)B of the NIT; Coal beneficiation and managing logistics for
Thermal Power Project; Technical evaluation by the Committee;
Non-submission of credentials; Joint Venture agreement; State
Mining Corporation.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11726
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2025 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WP No. 18286
of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., Gagan Sanghi, Mrs. Farah Hashmi,
Santosh Ghate, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Bijender Chahar, A.S.G., Shyam Divan, Balbir Singh, Arpan Pawar,
Sr. Advs., Kartik Seth, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Nikhil Nasre, Raghav
Sharma, Ms. Aditi Mishra, K.M Abish, Manan, Ms. Shrika Gautam,
Himanshu Satija, Harsh Saxena, Chiranjeev Sharma, Pulkit Pawar,
Mrs. Neha Mehta Satija.
530 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

1. Leave granted.

Factual Matrix
2. In response to Notice Inviting Tender1 dated 17.05.2024, issued
by the 1st respondent for the purpose of run-of-mine (ROM) coal
beneficiation and managing logistics from Western Coalfields Ltd.2
(Nagpur area) sources for Shree Singaji Thermal Power Project,
Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh), the appellant and two others, namely
the 2nd respondent3 and one M/s NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had
submitted their bid.
3. As NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. could not furnish earnest money
deposit, only the appellant and the 2nd respondent remained in
the fray. On 04.07.2024, the Tender Evaluation Committee4 while
referring to Clause 5(D)5 of the NIT rejected the appellant’s technical
bid holding as follows –

1 ID 2024_MPPGC_341576_1, hereinafter referred to as “NIT”.
2 Hereinafter “WCL”.
3 Rukhmai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
4 Hereinafter referred to as “The Committee”.
5 Clause 5(D): “Past Experience: Copies of successfully executed orders (including part executed) in the
name of bidder for same or similar work {similar work means coal lifting from mines of CIL subsidiaries or
SCCL area, coal beneficiation (through wet process), movement of washed coal by road from washery
to railway siding and movement of washed coal through Railways with experience in liaisoning with
Railways/ CIL subsidiaries or SCCL area, i.e., arranging rakes, dispatches coal from own or leased
Private siding or Goods shed Railways siding by loading of washed coal into railway wagons through
own arrangement with monitoring the rake movement etc. up to the destination Power house}. Bidder
is allowed to use past experience of their previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share
in that consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if not defined
in the Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria of the tender. The order copies should
indicate the above w/ork for 4 Lakh MT (4,00,000 MT) quantity or more in stale Owned Power Generating
Companies or Other Captive Power Utilities of PSU or NTPC or Govt. Industries / Departments or Semi
Govt. Industries / Departments or PSUs or Nodal Agency of any PSUs in India executed in last five
years ending with initial date of opening of bid are to be uploaded. This order execution should be within
a period of twelve (12) months. It may be through single or multiple orders (in parallel), but in case of
multiple orders; these should be within a single span of time period of twelve (12) months.
1. The work execution certificate by the customers along-with self-attested un-priced copies of
aforesaid work order(s) should be submitted.
2. For Past performance certificates - If worked with MPEB/ MPSEB/ MPPGCL in past for similar work,
then it is mandatory to provide Satisfactory Performance Certificate for the same. Failing this, the offer
shall not be considered.” (emphasis supplied)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 531

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

“As per Clause No. 5(D) “Past experience criteria” of
NIT, bidder is allowed to use past experience of their
previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in
that consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement,
otherwise, lead partner if not defined in the Consortium)
to meet out the past experience criteria of the tender.
The firm has used the credentials of their consortium
M/s Hind-Maha-Mineral LLP for meeting out the past
experience criteria. However, Agreement of the Consortium/
JV is not submitted to substantiate the share of the
bidder in that consortium. Bidder is disqualified due to
non-submission of credentials as per Clause No. (5)D of
the NIT.”
4. Appellant challenged the decision of the Committee before the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh.6 Appellant contended neither Clause
5(D) nor any terms of the NIT expressly required a bidder who
was relying on past-experience of a previous consortium or joint
venture7 to produce the JV agreement itself to demonstrate its
proportionate share in the consortium. In terms of Clause 5(D) it
had submitted a work execution certificate from Maharashtra State
Mining Corporation8 which inter alia stated that the appellant was
45% Joint Venture/Consortium Partner of M/s. Hind Maha Mineral
LLP vide the JV agreement dated 02.12.2019 and had executed
similar work in respect of WCL command for the period 05.03.2021
to 05.03.2024. It was further clarified the JV agreement had been
submitted before MSMC.
5. In case of doubt, 1st respondent could have verified the correctness
of the certificate from MSMC or called upon the appellant to furnish
the JV agreement. On the contrary, the 1st respondent arbitrarily
rejected the technical bid on the ground the JV agreement had not
been furnished.
6. 1st respondent contradicted such stance and contended in the event
any bidder was seeking to rely on past-experience of a previous
consortium/JV, submission of the JV agreement was implicit in

6 Writ Petition No. 18286/2024.
7 Hereinafter referred to as “JV”.
8 Hereinafter referred to as “MSMC”.
532 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Clause 5(D) of the NIT. Further, Clause 8.1 provided that if the bidder
did not submit the desired documents as per NIT at the time of
submission of the bid, he shall not be allowed to submit documents
subsequently and its bid is liable to be rejected on account of
incomplete documents. Clause 8.1 of the NIT unequivocally states
that –
“Instructions regarding shortfall documents:-
(i) The bidders not submitting all the desired documents
as per NIT/Tender Document at the time of submitting
bids, shall not be allowed to submit documents
subsequently and their bids shall be rejected on
account of incomplete documents. Thus, no “shortfall
window” for submission of shortfall documents shall
be created by MPPGCL in the e-tender.
(ii) Accordingly, Clause No. 1.15 (VII) “Verification of
credentials/PQR” of the Standard Bid Document (SBD)
so far as it relates to “Shortfall of document” window shall
not be applicable.
(iii) Any condition elsewhere mentioned in the
NIT/Tender Document for submission of Shortfall
Document shall not be applicable.
(iv) However, techno-commercial clarifications (if required)
shall be obtained through e-mail/physical form from the
bidders”
(emphasis supplied)

The said clause is further fortified by circular no. F-3/25/2015/13/109
issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 29.11.2023.

9 Circular dated 29.11.2023: “It has come to the notice of the department that bidders are being allowed
to participate in the bid process with incomplete documents. Bidders are allowed to submit the balance
documents in due course of time and meanwhile some of the bidders back out of the bidding process,
allowing a few number of bidders to participate in the bidding process and quote non-competitive rates
which results in financial loss to the Power Companies. It has therefore been decided that bidders not
submitting all the desired documents as per NIT/Tender document at the time of submitting bids,
should not be allowed to submit documents subsequently and their bids should be rejected on
account of incomplete documents. If required, even fresh bid can be called to get competitive rates.
As directed, it is request to please ensure the bidding process to make it more transparent and fair.”
(emphasis supplied)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 533

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

7. Appellant was fully aware of the requirement to furnish the JV agreement
to demonstrate its proportionate share in the consortium in order to rely
on the past-experience of such previous consortium/JV. In fact after
the closing date, by email dated 05.07.2024, the appellant purportedly
submitted a JV agreement dated 06.09.2019, which however did not
correspond to the JV agreement dated 02.12.2019 referred to in the
certificate issued by the MSMC. Be that as it may, such subsequent
submission of document was impermissible as per Clause 8.1 of the
NIT read with circular dated 29.11.2023 and the technical bid was
rightly rejected for submission of incomplete document.
8. During the pendency of the writ petition, 2nd respondent was declared
as the successful bidder and was impleaded in the proceedings.
During hearing, the JV agreement dated 02.12.2019 was placed
on record. Written submissions were also submitted on behalf of
the parties.

Findings of the High Court
9. By the impugned judgement and order, the High Court upheld the
decision of the Committee holding as follows:-
“22. Due to non-filing of Joint Venture agreement by the
Petitioner, the Impugned Order rejecting the bid of the
petitioner has to be seen wherein at the outset it has
been stated that your bid for the above tender has been
rejected during Technical evaluation by the duly constituted
committee for the reason Bidder is disqualified due to
non submission of credentials as per Clause No. (5)D of
the NIT.” It is evident that the Petitioner has not filed the
Joint Venture agreement. The Petitioner is disqualified
for the reason of non compliance with the requirements
in terms of Clause (5)D. The reason is also assigned by
the Respondent No.1 in their reply as to why the petitioner
was disqualified. If the petitioner is relying on the Joint
Venture Agreement dated 02.12.2019 then it was the duty of
Petitioner to file the same while submitting the bid. The NIT
condition no. (8)1(i) and (8)(1)(iii), specifically prohibit the
submission of the document/shortfall document at a later
stage. As per the NIT conditions, a bidder is supposed to
upload all the requisite documents at the time of submission
534 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the bid. It is evident that the earlier practice of allowing
bidders to fulfil the shortfall in documents left a scope for
unfair practices in the bidding process and therefore, the
said practice of allowing documents at a later stage has
been discontinued in view of the past experience, as is
evident from the letter 29.11.2023 of the GoMP, Energy
Department. The Petitioner in the present case relied on
the experience certificate issued by the Maharashtra
State Mining Corporation dated 14.06.2024 wherein
date of the Joint Venture agreement is mentioned as
02.12.2019. However, surprisingly the Petitioner neither
filed the said document of JV on record at the time
of submission of bid nor at the time of filing of the
petition. Even the document of JV agreement, which
the Petitioner has filed along with the Email sent to
Respondent No.1, is dated September, 2019 and not
02.12.2019. The Petitioner has not filed the said JV
Agreement from its own. It is apparent that there is a
suppression of the JV Agreement dated 02.12.2019 by
the Petitioner and hence, on this count of concealment
of JV agreement dated 02.12.2019 the instant petition
fails. The Petitioner has not given any satisfactory response
in the petition or even otherwise for not submitting the
document in alternate. Thus, the Petitioner cannot put
forward its claim before demonstrating its bonafides
that could have been done by duly submitting all the
documents and by not engaging in active suppression
and concealment…….”
(emphasis supplied)

10. Thereafter, referring to the written submissions made by the 2nd
respondent in light of Clauses 3.12, 3.13 and 8.5 of the JV agreement,
the Bench further held:-
“24. The additional submissions of the Respondent No.2
have force and it is evident that in any case, even if
the above-mentioned documents were provided by
the Petitioner would have been disqualified as its
washeries had been committed to Maharashtra State
Mining Corporation Ltd. alone in terms with the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 535

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Joint Venture Agreement dated 02.12.2019. Even the
experience Certificate issued by Maharashtra State Mining
Corporation Ltd. to the Petitioner categorically mentions
the Joint Venture Agreement dated 02.12.2019.”
(emphasis supplied)

11. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Division Bench dismissed the
writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal.
12. Heard Mr. Narender Hooda, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
Mr. Bijender Chahar, learned senior counsel for 1st respondent, and
Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel for
2nd respondent.

Analysis
13. It appears the High Court had not only upheld the disqualification of
the appellant by the Tender Evaluation Committee for non-compliance
of Clause 5(D) of the NIT but also went a step further and held,
even if the JV agreement had been submitted, the appellant would
have stood disqualified since its washeries had been exclusively
committed to MSMC.

(I) Appellant’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) of the NIT
14. First, let us consider whether the decision of the High Court to uphold
the appellant’s disqualification under Clause 5(D) for not furnishing
JV agreement is justified or not?
15. Clause 5(D) of the NIT required the bidders to furnish documents
relating to past-experience in similar work. The clause further provided
that “bidder is allowed to use past experience of their previous
Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in that consortium if
defined in the Consortium Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if not
defined in the Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria
of the tender.” Sub-clause 1 and 2 of the said clause stated the
following documents are to be submitted:-
“1. The work execution certificate by the customers
along-with self-attested un-priced copies of aforesaid work
order(s) should be submitted.
2. For Past performance certificates - If worked with
MPEB/ MPSEB/ MPPGCL in past for similar work, then
536 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

it is mandatory to provide Satisfactory Performance
Certificate for the same. Failing this, the offer shall not
be considered.”
(emphasis supplied)

Appellants had submitted a work execution certificate from MSMC
along with its bid to support its past-experience as a 45% proportionate
member of a consortium/JV for similar work executed at WCL in the
last five years. The relevant portion of the certificate reads as follows:-
“……this is to certify that as part of the aforementioned
contract agreement, M/s Maha Mineral Mining &
Beneficiation Private Limited being the 45% Joint
Venture/Consortium Partner of M/s. Hind Maha Mineral
LLP vide the JV agreement dated 02.12.2019 (submitted
to this office by M/s Hind Maha Mineral LLP) has executed
the said work in respect of WCL command for the period
05.03.2021 to 05.03.2024. The details are as follows:
a. Quantity of RoM Coal Lifted: 1,41,55,130.40 MT
b. Quantity of RoM coal washed: 1,17,95,440.46 MT
c. Quantity of washed coal supplied to Mahagenco
TPSs: 1,17,47,501.99 MT
d. Approximate value of the work executed: Rs. 465
crores.”
(emphasis supplied)

16. The aforesaid certificate clearly demonstrates that the appellant had
45% share in a JV consortium namely M/s Hind Maha Mineral LLP
and had successfully executed work of similar nature as required
by Clause 5(D) of the NIT.
17. The Committee refused to rely on such certificate holding as follows :-
“(v) As per tender condition no documents other than
Consortium/JV Agreement can be permitted to meet out
the above criteria as per the NIT. Thus, the certificate
submitted by M/s Maha Mineral Mining and Benefication
Private Limited cannot be considered as valid document
for the same.”
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 537

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

18. Though the submission of a JV agreement has not been expressly
stated in the aforesaid clause, the respondents argue that the
proportionate share of a bidder in a consortium/JV can only be
established through production of the JV agreement itself and
the words used in the contract/tender document must be read in
a purposive manner so that no part of the document is rendered
superfluous. Respondents further contend appellant had submitted its
bid on the last day and it was open to the appellant during the previous
calls to seek clarification whether submission of JV agreement was
mandatory. Appellant did not do so and intentionally suppressed the JV
agreement while submitting its bid to avoid disclosure of inconvenient
clauses in the JV agreement. This is evident from the appellant’s
conduct as it had after submission of bid, emailed a purported JV
agreement dated 06.09.2019, whereas the JV agreement mentioned
in the certificate was a different one. Be that as it may, the subsequent
submission of a JV agreement could not have been considered in
light of Clause 8.1 read with circular dated 29.11.2023.
19. We are unable to accept such arguments for the following reasons:-
(i) Clause 5(D) merely states the appellant would be entitled to
use the past-experience of a previous consortium/JV in the
event its proportionate share is defined in the JV agreement
failing which the past-experience shall be attributed to the lead
partner. The clause does not mandate the submission of the
JV agreement itself to satisfy such criteria. Appellant had relied
on the work execution certificate issued by MSMC which in no
uncertain terms states the appellant had 45% share in the JV
consortium named M/s Hind Maha Mineral LLP and successfully
executed similar work of a volume larger than required under
the clause. The certificate also mentioned the JV agreement
had been submitted and was in the custody of MSMC.
(ii) It is nobody’s case that the 1st respondent had doubted the
authenticity of the certificate but had disqualified the appellant
on the ground that Clause 5(D) mandated furnishing of the JV
agreement alone and nothing else to prove proportionate share
in a previous JV in order to use such experience.
(iii) Conditions in a NIT must be clear and unambiguous. In the
event the tendering authority insisted on furnishing of the
JV agreement alone and no other document as proof of the
538 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

proportionate share of the bidder to avail previous JV experience
as prior qualification, it should have been spelt out clearly in the
NIT. Having not done so, the 1st respondent cannot thrust the
responsibility on the appellant to seek clarification and submit
such document. As Clause 5(D) does not require submission
of JV agreement itself to establish proportionate share in the
JV whose past-experience the bidder is seeking to use, non-
submission of such JV cannot be a ground to disqualify the
bidder for submission of incomplete documents in terms of
Clause 8.1 of NIT. Admittedly, the appellant had submitted the
work execution certificate, as required under clause 5(D), which
also unequivocally sets out its proportionate share in the JV
agreement whose prior experience it had relied on.
(iv) Though it is argued Clause 8.1 as well as circular dated
29.11.2023 put an embargo on 1 st respondent to rely on
documents furnished after submission of bid, nothing
prevented 1st Respondent to seek clarification with regard to
the proportionate share of the appellant in the previous JV as
disclosed in the work execution certificate. It may be apposite
to note Clause 8.810 of the NIT, couched in a non-obstante
clause, reserved the right of the 1st respondent to seek additional
information to satisfy itself with regard to the eligibility of any
bidder. 1st respondent failed to exercise such discretion by
fortifying itself through calling for the JV agreement, which, when
placed before this Court, unequivocally endorsed the contents
of the certificate submitted by the Appellant.
(v) The other argument advanced by the respondents is that the
appellant had acted with mala fide intention by suppressing
the JV agreement and subsequently furnishing different
versions of the said agreement at various stages i.e., before
the 1st Respondent, in the Special Leave Petition and finally,
by way of additional documents respectively. This argument
is unacceptable as neither Clause 5(D) required submission
of JV agreement to prove proportionate share nor was the

10 Clause 8.8: “Notwithstanding anything stated above, MPPGCL reserves the right to assess the
creditability, capability and capacity to perform the contract. Should the circumstances warrant such
an assessment in its overall interest, bidder shall furnish additional documents to substantiate its claim.
MPPGCL also reserves the right to seek such additional information as it may deem fit to satisfy
itself of the eligibility of the bidder.” (emphasis supplied)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 539

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

appellant called upon to submit such document. Moreover,
the proportionate share of the appellant in the consortium
as reflected in all the documents, i.e., the JV agreement
submitted before the 1st Respondent, annexed to the SLP
and the agreement with additional documents, is the same
and consistent with the work execution certificate submitted
in the bid. For these reasons, we are not in agreement with
the argument that the appellant had intentionally suppressed
the JV agreement or had approached the Court with unclean
hands.
(vi) Finally, submission of the 2nd Respondent regarding a pending
civil dispute between the consortium partners of M/s Hind
Maha Mineral LLP is also of little consequence. Such dispute
has no impact on the proportionate share of the appellant in
the JV agreement and the work executed by the appellant as
a part of the consortium for MSMC as disclosed in the work
execution certificate.
20. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold the 1st respondent
acted contrary to the terms of the NIT and unfairly rejected the
appellant’s bid for non-production of JV agreement although Clause
5(D) did not prescribe production of such agreement as mandatory
to rely on past-experience of such consortium in which the bidder
had a defined proportionate share.
21. Accordingly, decision of the Committee, upheld by the High Court
as per Clause 5(D) is liable to be set aside.

(II) Appellant’s disqualification under Clause 5(B) of the NIT
22. However, the High Court went a step further, traversing beyond
the reasons given by the Committee and held the Appellant would
otherwise be disqualified under Clause 5(B) of the NIT. Clause 5(B)
reads as follows –
“Details of Washery:
Bidder should have its own Washery with wet beneficiation
technology either of Heavy Media Cyclone or Heavy Media
Bath or Wet Jig. The Bidder should have a minimum
spare washing capacity using wet technology of 50%
of annual tendered quantity, i.e., 5 Lakh Metric Tonnes
540 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(LMT), in area nearby to mines of WCL configured in
the tender. Total distance from mine(s) to offered washery
(ies) and offered washery (ies) to Railway siding shall not
be more than 100 KM.”
(emphasis supplied)

23. To arrive at such a finding the High Court relied on written arguments
submitted by the 2nd respondent and held as per Clauses 3.12, 3.13
and 8.5 of the JV agreement the appellant’s washeries were committed
to MSMC and could not have been used for the present tender.
Mr. Hooda rightly contends the issue was raised for the first time
in the written submissions and his client did not get the opportunity
to controvert the same. Referring to a chart placed before us,11 he
vehemently argues the appellant’s Gondegaon washery had a spare
capacity of 1.5 MMTPA12 which was much higher than the required
spare capacity under Clause 5(B) of the NIT. He further contends a
request13 had been made to MSMC to shift their operation to other
washeries in terms of Clause 614 of the contract agreement executed
between MSMC and the consortium, and the Gondegaon Washery
was available for execution of the work under the present NIT.
24. We are of the considered view the aforesaid issue is a contentious
one and ought not to have been decided by the High Court without
giving opportunity to the appellant to controvert the same. High
Court also lost sight of the fact that the Committee had not adverted
to this issue and it was impermissible for it to travel beyond the
reasons given by the Committee and disqualify the appellant. It is
also relevant to note that allotment of work order to 2nd respondent
has been made subject to the outcome of this proceeding.
25. For these reasons, we remand the matter for a fresh consideration
whether appellant had requisite spare washing capacity as per
Clause 5(B) of the NIT and the validity of the work order in favour
of the 2nd respondent in light of such decision. The High Court shall

11 Annexure P-34 in the Appellant’s Rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent.
12 Million Metric Tonnes Per Annum.
13 Letter dated 14.06.2024, annexed as P-36 in the Appellant’s Rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit filed by
the 2nd Respondent.
14 Clause 6: “ACCEPTED RATES:- Accepted Rates for beneficiation of raw coal as below (exclusive of
GST). If any change in washery/railway siding is request by CONTRACTOR (LLP), then it should
not put extra financial burden on MSMC” (emphasis supplied).
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 541

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd. v.
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr.

decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within two
months from the date of communication of this order.
26. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside
and the appeal is partly allowed.

Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain