Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014859-014859 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 18309/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior precedents on counting joint-venture experience (New Horizons, Ganpati) |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Contract Law |
| Questions of Law | Interpretation of “prime contractor in the same name and style” and whether proportionate experience earned as a joint-venture partner can satisfy NIT eligibility |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh invited tenders for a 27.2 km road contract (NIT No. 246/TC/24-25). The appellant bid, relying on two experience certificates—one individual and one for a joint venture (49 percent share). The technical committee disqualified the bid, holding that joint-venture experience could not count and the individual certificate fell below the 50 percent threshold. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave, examined the NIT terms, and set aside the disqualification as arbitrary. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and tribunals; tendering authorities |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; government procurement agencies |
| Follows | New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India; Ganpati PV – Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that, absent explicit exclusion, an NIT requirement for “each prime contractor in the same name and style” does not bar proportionate joint-venture experience.
- Affirms that eligibility norms in tenders must be drafted with legal certainty to avoid arbitrary disqualification.
- Reiterates that administrative interpretations merit deference but must not be irrational, perverse, or violative of Article 14.
- Confirms that partners in a joint venture may count their weighted share of past work when bidding individually.
- Emphasizes reliance on departmental communications and unified-registration rules to bolster eligibility arguments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Construction of NIT clause: Examined clause 1(b)(i)–(iii) requiring “each prime contractor in the same name and style” to satisfy turnover and past-work thresholds.
- Meaning of “prime contractor”: Applied common-parlance/commercial-business tests to hold it identifies the entity bidding, not necessarily excluding proportionate JV work.
- Nature of joint ventures: Adopted New Horizons definition—JV is a partnership for a project, and constituents’ experience forms the JV’s credentials.
- Precedents on JV experience: Cited New Horizons and Ganpati to require counting constituent-partners’ past work credit absent explicit NIT exclusion.
- Principle of clarity: Held that ambiguous or subjective eligibility norms violate Article 14 by enabling arbitrary rejections (Patel Engineering, Reliance Energy, IRCTC cases).
- Limits of deference: Recognized that courts defer to tender-authority interpretations unless shown to be irrational or mala fide (Afcons, Bharat Coking Coal).
- Application: Found respondents’ outright refusal to credit the appellant’s 49 percent JV share irrational and arbitrary—set aside disqualification and High Court order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (M/s Surguja Bricks Industries Company)
- NIT’s phrase “each prime contractor” permits reliance on past JV experience prorated to share (49 percent).
- Unified-registration rules expressly allow partners to use weighted JV experience.
- Departmental circulars (2016, 2017) confirm acceptance of sub-contracted/JV work for eligibility.
- Authority’s refusal was arbitrary, contradictory to own practice, and against binding precedents (New Horizons, Ganpati).
Respondent (State of Chhattisgarh / PWD)
- “Prime contractor in its name and style” requires all experience be in the bidder’s own name—JV is a distinct entity.
- Unified registration and NIT-eligibility are separate regimes; earlier departmental letters are non-binding.
- Interpretation by the technical committee was clear, non-mala fide, and courts should defer to it (Afcons, Bharat Coking Coal).
Factual Background
Between January and March 2025, the Chhattisgarh PWD issued a tender for a 27.2 km road contract (probable cost ₹45.22 crore). The appellant submitted a technical bid with two experience certificates—one individual (below 50 percent threshold) and one from a joint venture (49 percent share of ₹49.04 crore work). The technical committee disqualified the bid for relying on JV experience and insufficient individual turnover. The High Court dismissed a writ challenge, prompting a special-leave appeal to the Supreme Court, which granted stay and ultimately allowed the appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- No specific statute governs NIT terms; procurement followed departmental rules.
- Constitutional Article 14 invoked: requires non-arbitrary, fair, and reasonable State action in contracting.
- Reliance on established tender jurisprudence mandating transparency, clarity, and deference limits (Patel Engineering, Dutta Associates).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – affirms and applies established Supreme Court precedents on joint-venture experience counting.