Gujarat High Court
M/S R And B Infra Project Limited vs The Municipal Commissioner on 8 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 01/05/2026
Pronounced On : 08/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5436 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4647 of 2026
==================================================
M/S R AND B INFRA PROJECT LIMITED
Versus
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance in SCA/5436/2026:
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. SIMRAN PAHWA,
ADVOCATE FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. D.M.
DEVNANI(5880), ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. JAIMIN R. DAVE(7022), ADVOCATE WITH MS. MANVI A.
DAMLE(10805), ADVOCATE WITH MR. YASH SIKKA, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
Appearance in SCA/4647/2026:
MR. R. S. SANJANWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR.BHASH H.
MANKAD(6258), ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. D.M.
DEVNANI(5880), ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. JAIMIN R. DAVE(7022), ADVOCATE WITH MS. MANVI A
DAMLE(10805), ADVOCATE WITH MR. YASH SIKKA, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) Page 1 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [1] In these two writ petitions, the award of tender for designing and construction of Sewage Treatment Plant of 11.00 and 3.00 MLD, and also the designing and construction of various pumping stations along with allied works, awarded in favor of SNL & Company, is under challenge by two rival bidders whose bid has been rejected. The estimated contract value of this tender is about Rs.122.97 crores.
[2] Special Civil Application No.5436 of 2026 is filed by M/s R & B Infra Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the R & B"), who are aggrieved by the rejection of their tender on the ground that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that they had entered into with the owner of an asphalt plant was on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-, whereas the requirement of the tender was that it ought to have been on an MoU of Rs.300/-.
[3] After the bid was rejected on the aforementioned ground, a subsequent order has been passed by the Municipal Corporation to the effect that R & B had suppressed material facts in relation to its litigation history, despite a specific clause in the tender requiring that all litigations in the past five years be disclosed and this would also result in them being disqualified.
[4] Special Civil Application No.4647 of 2026 is filed by Yogi Construction Co., which is aggrieved by rejection of their tender by the Corporation on the ground that they had not complied with the six conditions of the tender, including the requirements Page 2 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined of submission of a site visit certificate duly signed by the engineer, and that the MoU submitted by it was not in accordance with the format and requirement of the tender conditions.
[5] The following facts are not in dispute:-
[5.1] On 15.01.2026, the Corporation issued an invitation for bids in respect of the aforementioned work, i.e., designing and construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant, having an estimated contract value of about Rs.122.97 crores. The last date for submission of the bids was 23.02.2026 at 5:30 PM. One of the requirements for submission of the bids was that the bid was to be submitted online. However, one of the conditions of the tender was also that physical copies of the bid that had been submitted online was also required to be submitted to the Corporation.
[5.2] After the online submission, it was noticed by the R & B that out of the 139 pages, only 106 pages had been uploaded, as per the portal, and as a consequence R & B contacted the entity, and it was informed that the discrepancy was due to the manner in which the documents had been uploaded. It appears that the bidder was required to upload four to five documents at a time, wait for the message 'files signed and saved successfully', and only thereafter could the next set of files be uploaded. Apparently, since R & B had not followed this procedure, the entire set of documents had not been uploaded.Page 3 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [5.3] Clause 24 of the tender conditions required that all tender documents should also be submitted through speed post so as to reach the Municipal Corporation within seven working days from the last date. R & B had, in fact, submitted all the tender documents physically within the required time frame of seven days. However, R & B was informed that their tender submitted online would not be considered since all the documents had not been uploaded.
[5.4] The petitioner, as a consequence, approached this Court in Special Civil Application No.4641 of 2026, and this Court, by an order dated 01.04.2026, disposed of the writ petition directing the Corporation to consider the documents which R & B had physically submitted and thereafter take a decision on the bids submitted by R & B and also by the others, on their merits.
[5.5] The Corporation had, in fact, informed the Court that the tender had been opened, negotiations had been undertaken, and a work order had also been issued. It was, however, submitted before the Court that the said decision would be kept in abeyance till the case of R & B was considered.
[5.6] Pursuant to the said order, the case of R & B was considered and the bid was rejected on 07.04.2026 on the ground that the MoU executed between R & B and its DI Pipe Supplier and DWC Pipe Supplier had been executed on a non-Page 4 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- instead of a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.300/-. It appears that this defect had been pointed out by the consultants engaged by the Corporation and this defect had made the bid being technically non-responsive and was therefore required to be rejected.
[5.7] R & B thereafter preferred a writ petition, i.e., Special Civil Application No.11994 of 2026 on 13.04.2026, challenging the said rejection.
[5.8] A week after the bid of R & B had been rejected, by way of communication dated 20.04.2026, the Corporation informed R & B that it was disqualified, as it had suppressed material information regarding its blacklisting and the consequential litigation in respect of the Black listing of a few of its other tenders. As a consequence, this communication dated 20.04.2026, has also been challenged by R & B, by way of an amendment.
[5.9] The facts, in so far as Yogi Construction Co. are concerned, is that the Corporation refused to open its commercial bid on 24.03.2026 and they are therefore constrained to file a writ petition seeking a direction to be issued to the Corporation to pen their bids and to evaluate their Technical bid and also for opening of their financial bid. They also seek rejection of the award of the tender in favor of SNL & Company.
Page 5 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [5.10] The tender submitted by the Yogi Construction Co. was not rejected due to six defects in their bid. The grounds, on which it was held that Yogi Construction Co. did not technically qualify, were that they did not meet the minimum experience, and they had failed to provide details regarding litigation history and staff requirements; and more importantly, they had not visited the site and submit a geotagged photo of the site visit duly certified by the concerned engineer and upload the same. Their tender was also considered technically non- responsive since the MoU that they had produced was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender, inasmuch as they did not abide by the prescribed format that had been adhered to by all the other bidders, and they had produced only an MoU regarding the drum mix plant.
[6] Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Simran Pahwa, appearing on behalf of R & B, contended that:-
The entire process adopted by the Corporation was manifestly arbitrary and was actuated by mala fides.
The Corporation had initially rejected the tender on a hyper technical ground that all the documents had not been uploaded, and thereafter, pursuant to the intervention of this Court, which directed the bid to be considered on the basis of the physical documents that had been submitted. The Corporation, being annoyed by Page 6 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined this, proceeded to reject the bid on the specious ground that the MoU which R & B had entered into with their pipe supplier was on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-, whereas it ought to have been for a sum of Rs.300/-. This reason, which was not only trivial but totally unconnected to the merits of the claim of R & B, itself indicated that the Corporation was bent upon keeping R & B out of the entire tender process.
The fact that after the bid of R & B was rejected, the Corporation proceeded to issue a communication holding that R & B was disqualified because they did not disclose their litigation history also fortifies the contention that the Corporation was discovering reasons to non-suit R & B. The fact that there was a second order disqualifying R & B, by itself, established that it had been pre-decided by the Corporation that the bid of R & B would never be considered.
The reason why the bid of R & B was rejected was fundamentally because its financial bid was only 8% over the contractual value, whereas the bid of SNL & company was 33% over and it was therefore obvious that the Corporation wanted to favor SNL & company to facilitate them to earn a huge profit to the detriment of the public exchequer.Page 7 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined The requirement of disclosing a blacklisting in other Tenders would not be relevant since the tender clause clearly stated that only if the bidder had been blacklisted for the delay in execution of the projects was the said fact required to be disclosed. If the blacklisting was for any reason other than delay, the bidder was not required to disclose the said fact. The Corporation basically intended to keep out only those bidders who were blacklisted because they had delayed the execution of the works, and it did not consider blacklisting for other reasons to be relevant.
It is submitted that the litigation history, which R & B is alleged to have not disclosed, essentially pertained to litigation in respect of blacklisting of R & B for reasons other than delay in execution of the projects. A reading of the relevant clause relating to litigation history would indicate that only litigation history in respect of executed contracts or contracts being executed and awards obtained thereof was relevant, and this by itself clearly indicated that other kinds of litigation history was unnecessary.
The litigation history sought was for the specific history relating to a specific set of facts, and therefore, demanding disclosure of litigation history with reference to facts which are not considered germane by the Page 8 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined Corporation is proof that the Corporation was seeking reasons to keep R & B out of the bidding process.
The entire conduct of the Corporation in rejecting the bid of the tender of R & B by citing three different reasons at three different points in time, including a rejection after the initial disqualification, indicates that the entire tender process had a predetermined outcome, namely, to favour SNL & Company.
SNL & Company was not even qualified to bid, inasmuch as it, being a proprietary concern, had absolutely no work experience in similar works.
SNL & company, a proprietary concern owned by Mr. Siddharth Lunagariya and this Lunagriya was the main partner in N. P. Patel and Company. The proprietor of SNL & company, namely Mr. Siddharth Lunagariya was, in fact, holding a stake of 90% in N. P. Patel and Company, a partnership firm, indicating that the firm N. P. Patel and Company was nothing, but an entity wholly owned and controlled by him. The registration of N. P. Patel and Company as AA+ contractor was itself fraudulent, inasmuch as the work experience of N. P. Patel and Company had been relied upon to secure such registration and SNL & Co had absolutely no work experience as required under the Tender notification.Page 9 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined N. P. Patel and Company, in which SNL & Co, the fourth respondent owned 90% of the firm, was admittedly a blacklisted company, and this order of blacklisting was confirmed by the High Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In essence, since N. P. Patel and Company could not participate in the present tender, the person who owned 90% in that firm created a proprietary concern, namely the 4th respondent and had proceeded to utilize the experience of N. P. Patel and Company, and submitted the bid basically to overcome the fact that N. P. Patel and Company could not have directly participated by virtue of its blacklisting.
The tender notification did not permit the work experience of any person other than the bidder to be relied on, and since admittedly SNL & company had absolutely no work experience, it was wholly ineligible to participate in the tender.
[7] Shri Saurabh Soparkar, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri D. M. Devnani, appearing on behalf of the Corporation put forth the following submissions:-
The rejection of the petitioner's tender cannot be assailed, since the bid contained defects which were incurable.Page 10 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined Though the bid of the petitioner had been found to be defective and liable for rejection, it was later discovered that there was a glaring contravention of the tender condition, inasmuch as the petitioner had suppressed the history of litigation in which it had been engaged in respect of other tenders.
The question of the petitioner's blacklisting was not of relevance, but the fact that he had litigated in various courts over a period of time would constitute a vital factor in determining the legitimacy of the petitioner's bid. If a bidder had deliberately suppressed not just one but a large number of litigations, it was apparent that he was trying to mislead the Corporation, and therefore, on discovery of these suppressed facts, the Corporation was entitled to reject the bid.
The petitioner had submitted its bid on 23.02.2026, and as on that day, he had in fact been blacklisted by two entities and despite a query raised by the Corporation regarding the blacklisting, the petitioner had not disclosed the litigation arising from such blacklisting.
It is settled law that the satisfaction of the tender inviting authority was paramount, when it comes to the question of determining the practicality of awarding tender to a bidder. If the antecedents of the bidder were doubtful or Page 11 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined suspicious, the tender inviting authority had the legal right to reject the bid, since the authority cannot be expected to take the risk of trusting a bidder who had not been fair in the submission of the bid.
Insofar as the work experience of SNL & Company is concerned, the Corporation had followed the PWD Manual and had accepted the work experience of N.P. Patel & Company, in which the fourth respondent was a 90% partner. The PWD Manual permitted taking into consideration the work experience of a partner for the purpose of meeting the eligibility criteria, and thus, the decision of the Corporation cannot be found fault with.
It was submitted that the Courts cannot minutely examine the assessment of a bid, as this is the prerogative of the tender inviting authority. The Courts are restrained from sitting in judgment over the decision of the tender accepting authority insofar as it relates to its satisfaction regarding the desirability of selecting a particular bidder to satisfy the terms of the contract.
He submitted that a disqualified or an in eligible bidder cannot possess the legal right to challenge the award of a tender to any other bidder and hence the petition itself was not maintainable.Page 12 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined He placed reliance on the following cases in support of his arguments:-
i. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another versus Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 633.
ii. In the case of Silppi Construction Contractors versus Union of India and another reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489.
iii. In the case of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and another versus BVG India Limited & others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 462.
iv. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & another reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818.
v. In the case of A.G.Construction through its
Authorised Signatory versus State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom.
vi. In the case of Mohammad Arif Shaikh versus Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Page 13 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined Co. Ltd. through Managing Director reported in 2017 (3) M.P.L.J. vii. In the case of Akash Infra Projects Limited versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 2020 (O) AIJEL-HC247918.
[8] Shri Jaimin R. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of SNL & Company supported the argument of Shri Soparkar, learned senior counsel and stated that the acceptance of the bid of SNL & Company could not be called in question. He placed reliance on the following case in support of his arguments:-
i. In the case of N.G.Projects Limited versus Vinod Kumar Jain and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127. [9] Shri R. S. Sanjanwala, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Bhash H. Mankad, appearing for the Yogi Construction and Co. submitted that:-
The rejection of Yogi's bid was on frivolous reasons. He submitted that the reason put forth, namely the absence of a site visit certificate along with a geo-tagged photograph was an insignificant requirement. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the site visit had not been conducted by the petitioner, the same would not render the bid defective.Page 14 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined He further submitted that the requirement of a site visit certificate along with a geo-tagged photograph was insignificant, and even if such a visit had not been undertaken, that would not render with bid defective. Even if it is assumed that the site visit had not been carried out, at best, the petitioner would be taking a risk in the execution of the contract and could not obviously thereafter contend that he was unaware of the site conditions. If a bidder does not comply with a condition that was designed for his benefit, the same cannot be used as a ground to reject a tender.
Yogi Construction Co. had produced an MoU in relation to hiring a drum-mix plant, and this satisfied the condition of the tender. He emphasized that the tender document required an MoU evidencing an understanding or agreement in relation to an asphalt plant. However, the corrigendum to the tender permitted a bidder to use a drum-mix plant, which is the same as an asphalt plant, and thus the requirement of the tender notification stood satisfied.
He submitted that a drum-mix plant is the same as an asphalt plant, and possessing of either of the two was sufficient; therefore, the tender condition stood satisfied the moment there was a lease agreement in respect of a drum-mix plant.Page 15 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [10] Insofar as the writ petition filed by Yogi Construction Co. is concerned, Shri Saurabh Soparkar, learned senior counsel contended that:-
Though the bid was rejected on six grounds, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the required documents along with the necessary certification had not been produced by Yogi Construction Co., and also because the MoU, which was a mandatory requirement, had not been submitted.
It was contended that the tender document categorically stated that if the required documents were not submitted along with the tender, the same would be rejected.
It is, in fact, admitted by the petitioner that the geo-tagged photograph, along with the certification of the concerned engineer regarding the site visit, was not furnished, and the MoU in the required format was also not produced; therefore, the rejection of Yogi Construction's bid cannot be found fault with.
When the tender specified the requirement of an MoU in relation to an asphalt plant and a drum-mix plant, it was not open for the bidder to decide which of the two would satisfy the tender condition. Having participated in the tender, knowing fully well that certain conditions were Page 16 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined required to be complied with, it was not open to the bidder to thereafter contend that those conditions were unnecessary or superfluous. He submitted that so long as the tender conditions had been accepted, adherence to them was mandatory.
[11] In the light of the above submissions, the following questions would arise for consideration:-
Whether R & B has established that the processing of the tender is manifestly arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Whether R & B has established that the Corporation was not justified in rejecting its bid on the ground that litigation history of the petitioner had not been disclosed?
Whether R & B has established that it had satisfied the conditions of the tender and its bid was required to be considered on its merits?
Whether R & B had established that SNL & Co was not entitled to be awarded the contract since it had no work experience at all?
Whether the R & B has established that SNL & Co could not have relied on the work experience of NP Patel & Co, which was Blacklisted Concern and the properties of SNL Page 17 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined & Co owned 90% of the firm and for all purposes was the true owner of the firm?
[12] At the outset, it is to be stated that the legal position in relation to the interference of the Courts in matters related to tenders is rather well settled. The Courts can only examine the manner in which the tender is processed and consider whether the terms of the tender have been adhered to by both the tender inviting authority as well as the bidders. Though the scope of interference by Courts is limited and lies within a narrow compass, nevertheless, the law is also well settled that the Courts are obliged to interfere when the procedure adopted in the tendering process is manifestly arbitrary and is plainly evident from the pleadings and also if the conduct of the parties on the basis of admitted materials establish that the entire tendering process was vitiated by wanton acts of mala fides.
[13] Since, this is the settled position of law, it would be unnecessary to reiterate all the judgments cited by both the parties, as they essentially convey the same principle. Thus, the overarching concern of this Court is to examine whether the procedure adopted by the Corporation for processing the tender is fair, just and proper, and does not smack of arbitrariness or mala fides.
[14] As noticed above, the tender is for the purpose of establishing a Sewage Treatment Plant with an estimated contract value of 122.97 crores. Thus, it is clear that the tender Page 18 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined is not in relation to a work which can considered of a minor or a trivial nature. The establishment of a Sewage Water Treatment Plant would affect the entire city of Porbandar which houses lakhs of people and hence, it would all the more be necessary to examine whether the processing of the tender by the Corporation has been just and proper and is in accordance with established norms of law.
[15] In the present case, it is not in dispute that the bid submitted by R & B was initially rejected on the ground that the complete set of bid documents had not been uploaded. The Corporation, though had received the hard copy of the tender document as stipulated in the tender notification, refused to consider the physical copy to consider the bid of R & B. Admittedly, in the physical copy submitted by the petitioner, all the documents, including those which had not been properly uploaded, were available. Significantly, the hard copy had also been furnished within the stipulated time. Nevertheless, the Corporation chose to reject the tender. It was only upon the intervention of this Court that the Corporation had to consider the bid of R & B. It may be pertinent to note that the Corporation has not found any deficiency in the bid which affects it validity.
[16] On consideration of the petitioner's bid, the Corporation has proceeded to reject the bid on a ground which is rather strange. It appears that the Corporation had engaged the Page 19 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined services of a consultant, who advised that the MoU submitted by R & B could not be acted upon since it was executed on a non- judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-, as against the requirement of Rs.300/-. In respect of a tender relating to the establishment of a Sewage Treatment Plant, wherein one of the conditions required an MoU to establish that the bidder had an agreement with the supplier of pipes, the essential requirement for the Corporation was to satisfy itself there existed a valid arrangement between the bidder and the supplier for the supply of those items which were essential for the execution of the contract. The Corporation does not dispute the fact that there was, in fact, an MoU between R & B and the supplier. The Corporation has also not taken the stand that it had received any complaint from the contracting party, i.e., the supplier, that no such MoU had been executed.
[17] If the MoU was not executed on a stamp paper of the requisite value, the authorities could, at best, have taken action to ensure recovery of the stamp duty. By no stretch of the imagination could the Corporation have rejected the bid on that ground. The fact that the Corporation, through its consultant, went into such microscopic details indicates that it was essentially searching for some reason to reject the bid.
[18] This suspicion of the Court regarding the conduct of the Corporation stands fortified by a further analysis of the manner in which the Corporation has conducted itself thereafter.Page 20 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [19] This rejection of the bid submitted by R & B for the second time on the ground of insufficient stamp paper was made on 07.04.2026, and this writ petition challenging the same was filed on 13.04.2026.
[20] On 18.04.2026, i.e., nearly 11 days after the bid was rejected, the Corporation has addressed an email to R & B (which is produced by the Corporation at Annexure R1), seeking to raise a query as to whether it had been blacklisted by any Municipal Corporation or Central Government or State Government, and sought for the details of any such blacklisting. A second notice was issued on the 20.04.2026, alleging that the petitioner had not furnished details of its litigation history, and related matters. This act of the Corporation, in issuing notices after it had already rejected the tender bid of R & B on 07.04.2026 and after the filing of the writ petition, itself indicates that the Corporation was aware that the reasons for its earlier rejection were on weak grounds and it basically wanted to discover new grounds to non-suit R & B. [21] R & B, in fact, furnished a reply on 23.04.2026, wherein it provided details of the litigation history in which it had been engaged with other entities. At first blush, this admission by R & B that it had engaged in litigation in respect of other tenders would ordinarily have led this Court to conclude that there had been suppression of material facts, necessitated dismissal of the writ petition on that ground alone.
Page 21 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [22] The Corporation, on receipt of the reply of R & B, thereafter, proceeded to pass an order to the effect that there had been suppression of facts, and consequently, R & B was declared disqualified from the tender. In essence, this was the third time that bid of R & B was being rejected. The first rejection was on 25.03.2026, when the bid was rejected on the ground that all the documents had not been uploaded. The second rejection was on 07.04.2026, on the ground that the MoU produced by R & B was not on the requisite value of stamp papers. The third rejection on 24.04.2026 was an order whereby the Corporation declared R & B to be disqualified from participating in the tender.
[23] This relentless conduct of the Corporation in finding different grounds to reject the bid of R & B, not once but thrice, raises serious doubts about its bona fides and the manner in which it has evaluated the tenders submitted by the petitioner.
[24] Be that as it may, it would be desirable to examine whether there has been a flouting of the tender condition by R & B on the ground that it had not disclosed the litigation history as required under the tender notification.
[25] The clause relating to litigation history reads as follows:-
Page 22 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined "4.5.8. Litigation History The Applicant should provide accurate information on any litigation or arbitration resulting from contracts completed or under execution by him over the last five years. A consistent history of awards against the Applicant or any partner of a joint venture may result in failure of the applicant."
[26] The clause relating to blacklisting would first have to be considered to understand the import of the above clause. That the relevant clause relating to blacklisting is Clause 4.7.8, which reads as follows:-
"VI) The Bidder/JV MEMBER/MOU partners contract should not have been terminated/blacklisted/debarred in any State Govt/ Municipal Corporations/ Central Govt./ Any state Govt Organization, Urban Local body and/or its undertaking company or its SPV, Asian Development Bank/ World Bank or similar international funding agencies organizations due to delay in projects during last five years."
[27] A plain reading of this particular clause would indicate that the a contract of the bidders with other entities, which they had executed should not have been terminated, the bidder should not have been blacklisted or debarred on the ground that there had been a delay in the execution of the projects in the preceding five years. Thus, through the said clause in the tender notification, the Corporation was only interested in knowing for a fact whether the contract of bidder had been terminated or whether the bidder had been blacklisted or debarred because they had delayed the execution of the projects. In other words, the capability of the bidders to execute the work within the prescribed time frame was all that the Corporation was interested in, which is understandable given the nature of the project.
Page 23 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [28] The unmistakable consequence of a plain reading of this clause is that if the contract of the bidder had been terminated, or if the bidder had been blacklisted or debarred on any other ground was not considered to be a disqualification for the bidder to apply. To put up differently, it is only if a bidder had suffered the termination of the contract, or blacklisting or debarment in other contracts in the past five years, for the reason that there was a delay in the execution of the projects, it is only then that the bidder would be ineligible to succeed in his bid.
[29] The further consequence of this clause is that if a bidder had been blacklisted for any reason other than delay in execution of the projects, then, the Corporation did not consider it as a disqualification and that it was basically not interested in knowing whether there had been a termination/blacklisting/debarring for any other reason.
[30] If it was the intention of the Corporation that all kinds of blacklisting, debarment or termination of other contracts, irrespective of the reason, were material facts to be disclosed by the bidder, the tender clause would not have indicated that the blacklisting, debarment or termination of the contract should only be for the specific reason of delay in execution of the project.
[31] It is the admitted case of R & B that in respect of three Page 24 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined contracts it had been blacklisted. However, it is specifically contended that the blacklisting was not because there was any delay in the execution of the contract and the blacklisting was for other technical reasons. This assertion of R & B that the blacklisting was not for reasons relating to the execution of its other contracts, is not disputed by the Corporation.
[32] It may also be pertinent to state here that R & B had, in fact, given a reply in response to the query raised by the Corporation after its contract was terminated, and in this reply also they have stated the blacklisting suffered by them and also narrated the reasons. R & B also produced the copies of the order passed by the High Courts of Rajasthan, which clearly established that the blacklisting was not because of any delay on their part in the execution of the contract. In fact, the blacklisting was on account of submission of false experience certificate. It is thus clear that as the contracts of R & B with other entities had not been terminated or they had been blacklisted or debarred for causing a delay in the execution of the contracts and they were as a consequence not disqualified to participate in the tender as contemplated in the tender condition referred to above.
[33] Shri Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel, however, argued that even assuming that the blacklisting was not for delay in the execution of the projects, nevertheless, R & B was guilty of flouting a vital tender clause, namely the clause relating to litigation history.
Page 25 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [34] The clause in relation to litigation history, as cited above, would clearly indicate that the bidder is required to provide accurate information on any litigation or arbitration in respect of completed contracts or contracts which are under execution in the last preceding five years. This clause indicates that if there is a consistent history of awards against the bidder or any partner of a joint venture, that could result in failure of the applicant. It is rather obvious that this clause could not be pressed into service by the Corporation to non-suit the petitioner.
[35] As noticed above, the Corporation was interested in knowing only kind of blacklisting i.e., blacklisting for the delay in execution of the project. The Corporation, by necessary implication, was not holding the blacklisting of a bidder for any other reason as a disqualification of the bidder. To put it differently, the Corporation only wanted to know whether the blacklisting was for the reason of causing a delay in the execution of the project. If this is the admitted position, the litigation arising out of a blacklisting which was a reason other than delay in the execution of the projects, would really be of no consequence and would not be a material fact which had to be disclosed to the Corporation.
[36] It is also important to note that the clause relating to litigation history is also specifically worded to state that the litigation should be in relation to the contracts which are Page 26 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined completed or which are under execution. The further use of the term "the consistent history of awards against the bidder" would indicate that the litigation was obviously only in relation to the execution of the contract.
[37] In other words, only if there was litigation in relation to the manner in which a contract had been executed was the bidder required to really disclose the same. The reason for such disclosure is also found in the very same clause, which states that the bid of the applicant could be rejected if there was a consistent history of awards against him. This would therefore remove all ambiguity regarding the litigation history that was to be disclosed by a bidder. It is clear that the litigation history in relation to the actual execution of a work or the contracts that were still under execution by him was a fact which was to be disclosed to the Corporation.
[38] As far as R & B is concerned, the blacklisting in respect of other tenders was due to their lapse in such as submission of false experience certificate, and all the litigation that R & B had engaged into was in relation to this aspect of blacklisting only.
[39] As already noticed above, if blacklisting was for reasons other than delay in execution of the project, the same was irrelevant as regards the corporation's term of disclosure, and as a logical consequence, the subsequent litigation in relation to such an irrelevant factor need not be disclosed or the non- disclosure of this irrelevant factor would not affect the integrity Page 27 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined of the bidder. It is therefore clear that the Corporation has searched for reasons to disqualify the petitioner. It is therefore clear that the manner in which the Corporation has undertaken the tender process smacks of arbitrariness and, as a consequence, this Court will be obliged to intervene and annul the arbitrariness.
[40] There is yet another reason to interfere in this tender process which is much more weighty and is a crucial factor in relation to the execution of the project.
[41] Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior counsel pointed out that the tender condition required the bidder to possess certain qualification criteria which was spelt out in Clause 4.5.3 of the tender condition, which related to general experience, and the same is reproduced here for the sake of clarity:-
"4.5.3. General Experience.
The Applicant shall meet with the following minimum criteria:
(e) Achieved a minimum annual financial turnover (defined as billing for works in progress and completed in all classes of civil engineering construction works only) in any one year, over the last five years of the annual value of contract / contracts applied for as per below criteria.
(b) Experience in successfully completing or substantially completing at least one contract of Sewerage at least percent mentioned in below criteria of the value of proposed contract within the last five years.
The works may have been executed by the applicant as prime contractor or as a member of a joint venture or as a nominated sub-contractor. As subcontractor, he should have acquired the Page 28 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined experience of execution of all major items of works under the proposed contract. In case a project has been executed by a joint venture, weight towards experience of the project would be given to each joint venture in proportion to their financial participation in the joint venture.
Substantially completed works means those works which are at least 90% completed as on the date of submission (i.e. gross value of work done up to the last date of submission is 90% or more of the original contract price) and continuing satisfactorily. For these, a certificate from the employers shall be submitted along with the application incorporating clearly the name of the work, contract value, billing amount, date of commencement of works, satisfactory performance of the contractor and any other relevant information.
[42] Clause 4.5.3 sub-clause (b) categorically states that the applicant should have experience in successfully completing or substantially completing at least one contract of Sewage Treatment Plant with the percentage prescribed therein of the value of the proposed contract in the preceding five years. This would therefore mean that SNL & Company which should have substantially completed at least one contract of Sewage Treatment Plant of the prescribed value in the preceding five years.
[43] The second para of Clause (b) also states that the works could have been executed by the bidder, either as a prime contractor or as a member of a joint venture or as a nominated subcontractor.
[44] It is not in dispute that SNL & Company has not executed any work either as a prime contractor or as a member of a joint venture or as a nominated subcontractor. Thus, on a plain Page 29 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined reading of this particular clause, it is obvious that SNL & Company did not possess any experience at all in the construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant in the preceding five years.
[45] However, the Corporation has embarked upon an ingenious defense to get over this lacuna and defend their acceptance of bid of SNL & Company. The Corporation, in its affidavit in reply (in para 8), has stated that SNL & Company was holding a valid "AA class" certificate and it was therefore entitled to participate. It has also gone on to state that if R & B had any grievance regarding AA class certificate, they would have to challenge it, and so far as the Corporation was concerned, it is bound by the certification.
[46] Insofar as the work experience, in para 33 it is stated as follows:-
"33. Furthermore, it is submitted that according to PWD manual Page No. 679 Point B Subpoint (i), experience gained by individual partners in the execution of works in the past can be taken into consideration while deciding the category of the contractors, if the partner concerned has to his credit the execution of such works by virtue of monetary share and other Interests. Therefore, experience gained by Mr. Siddharth Narendrakumar Lunagariya i.e. proprietor of M/s S. N. L. & Co. in execution of works of M/s N. P. Patel and Co. can be considered for the purpose of technical and financial criterion. In other words, considering the monetary share of Mr. Siddharth Narendrakumar Lunagariya i.e. proprietor of M/s S. N. L. & Co. in M/s N. P. Patel and Co., Mr. Siddharth Narendrakumar Lunagariya i.e. proprietor of M/s S. N. L. & Co. can rely upon technical and financial criterion of M/s N. P. Patel and Co. Furthermore, there are no terms and conditions in the tender Page 30 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined document, whereby bidder is prohibited from relying upon the experience of M/s N. P. Patel and Co. for technical and financial criterion. On the contrary, the PWD manual permits M/s S. N. L. & Co. to rely upon the experience of M/s N. P. Patel and Co. for technical and financial criterion considering the financial share of Mr. Siddharth Narendrakumar Lunagariya. It is submitted that out of abundant caution the answering Respondent No. 1 has also obtained opinion of consultant for the said project, namely Savjani Architecture & Engineering Consultants. It is submitted that vide opinion dated 09.04.2026, one Savjani Architecture & Engineering Consultants has confirmed the above-mentioned position and confirmed the eligibility of the Respondent No. 4. (A copy of opinion obtained from Savjani Architecture & Engineering Consultants is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure - "R4"). Hence, the present petition is required to be rejected even on the count that as on date Respondent No. 4 is holding valid "AA Class" certificate and Respondent No. 4 was evaluated in accordance with terms and conditions of the tender."
[47] The Corporation is seeking to contend that SNL & Company satisfies the criteria of experience as prescribed under the PWD Manual and not in terms of the tender notification. The Corporation is essentially shifting its goalposts and is finding ways and means to accommodate the bid of SNL & Company, and this is further proof of the mala fides and the arbitrary manner in which it has undertaken this tender process.
[48] The argument that the Corporation can rely upon the PWD Manual and, as a consequence, allow SNL & Company to glean the experience of N. P. Patel and Company is basically perverse. As noticed above, the work experience of the bidder is essential. If the bidder was a part of a joint venture, the experience of the joint venture was acceptable. Similarly, if the bidder was a nominated subcontractor, that experience was also acceptable.
Page 31 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [49] The tender notification does not, by any stretch of imagination, contemplate the experience of a partner of the bidder would be adequate. The tender notification, in fact, specifically states that the bidder is required to have the requisite prescribed work experience and there is not mention either directly or indirectly that experience of any entity related to the bidder is acceptable. This attempt by the Corporation is a deliberate attempt not only to mislead but also to skew the entire qualification criteria.
[50] It is not in dispute that SNL & Company is a proprietary concern. It is the admitted position of SNL & Company, that the proprietor Mr. Siddharth Narendrakumar Lunagariya, is a partner in the partnership firm, N. P. Patel and Company, and in that partnership firm he owned 90% of the shares.
[51] In other words, the individual proprietor, is a partner in a firm. A partnership firm, in law, is a distinct entity. The experience of a firm would be material if the firm had been the bidder. A partner of such a firm, when bidding for a contract as an individual proprietor, cannot claim that the experience of the firm to which he is a partner as his own experience, even if he owns substantially the entire share of the firm.
[52] The PWD Manual, on which reliance is placed, contains a clause which reads as follows:-
Page 32 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined "(B) PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AND RELIABITY:
Supported by certificates or recommendations of officers who have had personal knowledge of applicant and his work and a list of works executed showing their nature, year of construction and actual cost of construction. Technical quali fications and experience of all the partners and leading tech-nical employces in the Firm should also be on record.
(i) The experience gained by individual partners in the exe-cution of works in the past may be taken into consideration while deciding the category of the contractors , if the partner concerned has to his credit the execution of such works by virtue of monetary share and other intcrests. Experience gained merely as a servant may not count as a proof of the capabi-lity of the Firm as a whole,
(ii) While considering the application for registration/up radation/renewal, the certificates regarding satisfactory com-
pletion of works as well as works in progress or works for which teader have been quoted by the contractor shall be examined by the Department. Information of such works has to be given in a statement, as per Fortn No. 3. In addition to this, information in Form No. 3-A shall be furnished for cach and every work done or in progress in last 3 years alonge with the application Form and other documents."
[53] As could be seen from this extract, which is produced by the Corporation, this would indicate that, it is in respect of registration of category of Contractors and in that regard it is stated that in respect of professional capacity and reliability, certificates or recommendations of officers who had personal knowledge of the bidder and his work are acceptable. It is also indicated that the technical qualifications and experience of all the partners and lead technical employees in the firm should be on record.
Page 33 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [54] In the context of a firm, sub-clause (i) states that the experience gained by individual partners in the execution of works in the past may be taken into consideration while deciding the category of contractors, if the partner has to his credit the execution of such works by virtue of his monetary share and other interest.
[55] In other words, if the applicant was a firm seeking for registration as a particular class of contractor, which was dependent on the value of the works already executed, then, the experience of an individual partner of the firm had secured could be considered for the purpose of registering the firm as a particular class of contractor. This would thereby mean that the clause upon which Corporation has relied upon was essentially in relation to the registration of partnership firm as particular class of Contractor.
[56] To illustrate, if the firm was seeking for registration as AA+ contractor and for this it was required to show that it had executed say, Rs. 10 crores of work, then, in such a case, the work executed by the firm and also by the individual partners would be collectively considered for registration as AA+ contractor.
[57] However, this clause is sought to be twisted to mean that a bid by a proprietary concern, which, by itself, has no experience can still participate in the tender by taking Page 34 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined advantage of the experience of the firm to which the proprietor was a partner. This kind of an interpretation of a clause providing for registration of a contractor as a particular class of contractor and importing the clause into a tender notification to determine the eligibility of a bidder is perverse, to say the least. This would virtually amount to completely disregarding, probably the most vital aspect of the tender, i.e., the ability of the tenderer to execute specialized work.
[58] The reason that we are constrained to make these observations regarding the conduct of the Corporation is because, it is an admitted fact in the present case that N. P. Patel and Company, the partnership firm to which Mr. Siddharth Narendrakumar Lunagariya, the proprietor of SNL & Company is a partner, has been blacklisted in respect of other tenders, and this blacklisting has also been upheld by the Courts. As a result of this blacklisting, N. P. Patel and Company would have been disqualified from participating in the present tender. In order to get over this disqualification, on NP Patel & Co, its major partner i.e., the proprietor of SNL & Company has submitted its bid as a proprietary concern.
[59] It may also be pertinent to state here that SNL & Company obtained its classification as a AA class contractor by once again placing reliance on the work of the blacklisted firm, i.e., N. P. Patel and Company. To put it in simple terms, since N. P. Patel and Company was disqualified from participating in the tender, Page 35 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined it has submitted the bid through Mr. Siddharth Narendrakumar Lunagariya, who incidentally holds 90% shares of the partnership firm N. P. Patel and Company. In our view, this clearly establishes that the entire tender process is sought to be skewed in order to ensure SNL & Company is awarded the contract.
[60] as already noticed above, that as per clause 2 of the PWD Manual, reliance upon which reliance is placed, relates to the registration, upgradation and renewal of a contractor. This would mean that the PWD Manual is basically in relation to the registration of a contractor and assigning the contractor to a particular category. This would therefore not mean to state that the PWD Manual would accept the work experience of an entity to which the bidder, i.e., a proprietary concern, was a partner.
[61] Another argument is sought to be advanced by the Corporation to the effect that it is bound to abide by the terms of the PWD Manual, and this is also made clear in the Technical Approval, that has been granted by the Corporation (vide Annexure R2 to its additional affidavit). Reliance is sought to be placed on Clause 11, which states that the approval is granted subject to the condition that the work is to be executed in compliance of the terms of the PWD Manual. It is to be stated here that Annexure R2 is admittedly a technical approval granted by the Corporation for the project. This would obviously mean that the technical requirements of the project should Page 36 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined satisfy the terms of the PWD Manual. This clause cannot be stretched to contend that a clause relating to registration of a contractor of a firm, can be utilized to hold that the bidder satisfies the work experience criteria specified in the tender notification.
[62] Reliance is also sought to be placed on Section 493 and Appendix IV the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act to contend that any notification, rule, by-law established, issued under the provision of the Gujarat Panchayats Act or the Gujarat Municipalities Act would continue to apply. It is contended that since the technical approval contains a clause regarding adherence to the terms PWD Manual, the PWD Manual would also be ipso facto applicable in all aspects. This is, once again, a deliberate attempt to misread a provision.
[63] The provision under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act is a transitory provision which comes into operation when a either a Panchayath or a Municipality is being upgraded to a municipal corporation,. This transitory provision would basically indicate that any act done in exercise of statutory powers, either under the Gujarat Panchayats Act or the Municipalities Act, would continue to operate. Admittedly, the PWD Manual is not a manual enacted in exercise of statutory powers conferred either under the Gujarat Panchayats Act or the Gujarat Municipalities Act or the Gujarat Municipal Page 37 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined Corporations Act. The purpose of the transitory provision is to ensure that there is continuity whenever a panchayat or municipality becomes a part of the Corporation and there is no conflict which emerges when this event occurs. In our view, the argument that the PWD Manual enables the Corporation to rely upon the work experience of N. P. Patel and Company, a blacklisted company, for the purpose of satisfying the work experience of the bidder, i.e., SNL & Company, a proprietary concern, cannot be accepted.
[64] In the result, we have no other option but to quash the award of contract in favor of SNL & Company, i.e., the fourth respondent, and, as a consequence, the Corporation is directed to consider the other eligible bids, including the bid of R & B, the petitioner, in accordance with law.
[65] To clarify, if there are any other eligible bidders apart from R & B still in the fray, the Corporation can consider those bids and, on comparative analysis on the merits of the bids, take an appropriate decision. Special Civil Application No.5436 of 2026 filed by M/S R and B Infra Project Limited is allowed.
[66] As far as the petition filed by Yogi Construction Co. is concerned, the argument of the learned senior counsel Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala is that the non-production of a certificate required under the terms of the tender is not a material aspect and could be disregarded. In our view, this argument is unacceptable.
Page 38 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [67] Clause 4.6.3 of the tender condition reads as follows:-
"Joint venture is not allowed 4.6.3. The bidder has to attach MOU with Road work agencies as a part of technical bid. A contractor should have a Asphalt plant owned by him within an aerial radius of 10 km from the limits of Porbandar Municipal Corporation and a contractor having a Asphalt plant owned by him inside an aerial radius of 10 km from the limits of Porbandar Municipal Corporation and an existing batch owned by another within an aerial radius of 10 km from the limits of Porbandar Municipal Corporation. If the contractor wants to use a plant which is a Asphalt, then the contractor has to submit an on a stamp paper of Rs.300 and an MOU with the owner for the usual time frame. Along with this, proofs showing the latest ownership of the plant must also be given and mentioned and this MOU with the owner will be valid for the duration of the work and the performance guarantee of the work will be in force. Which also has to be mentioned. Performa of MOU with the owner will be given by Authority.ez If more than one contractor signs an MOU with a Asphalt plant, the MOU signed with the first contractor will be consider valid and the MoU signed with the second contractor thereafter will be disqualified.
The Agency may establish their own asphalt plant incase they are not willing to execute MOU with locally available asphalt plant."
[68] As could be seen from the said clause, Yogi Construction Co. was required to attach an MoU with road work agencies as a part of the technical bid, and it ought to have either owned an asphalt plant within a radial distance of 10 kilometers from the limits of the Corporation and, in the event Yogi Construction Co. wanted to use an asphalt plant of some other entity, it had to submit an MoU on stamp paper with the owner of the plant. In such an event, proof of ownership of the plant was also required to be given. The proforma of the MoU was also prescribed as a Page 39 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined part of the tender (at page 124 of the writ petition). It is the case of the Corporation that all the other bidders had submitted the MoU in the prescribed format, but Yogi Construction Co. had not produced the MoU and therefore its bid was rejected.
[69] The case of Yogi Construction Co. is that a corrigendum had been issued by the Corporation (at page 301 of the papers) which permitted the bidder to produce only an MoU in respect of a drum mix plant, along with proof of ownership, and since this condition was satisfied by Yogi Construction, the bid was compliant. Moreover, it is their case that as the drum mix plant was sufficient to adhere to the terms of the tender as a drum mix plant would meet the requirement of possessing access am Asphalt plant. This argument cannot be accepted.
[70] It is an admitted fact that the corrigendum issued a Corrigendum to the tender, which reads as follows:-
"CORRIGENDUM 2 FOR PORBANDAR DRAINAGE TENDER ID NO.-264909 The present provision in tender as per column no.4 of below given table shall be replaced/ added as per column no.5 of blow given table:
Tender Page Tender Present Provision To be replaced Volume No. Clause No. 1 2 3 4 5
--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- The bidder has to attach MOU with Please add following:
Road work agencies as a part of MOU within an Arial technical bid. A contractor should radius of 10 km from have a Asphalt plant owned by him the limit of within an aerial radius of 10 km from Porbandar Municipal Page 40 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the limits of Porbandar Municipal Corporation or Corporation and a contractor having owner ship proof a Asphalt plant owned by him inside (drum mix plant bill) an aerial radius of 10 km from the must be produced. limits of Porbandar Municipal Corporation and an existing batch owned by another within an aerial radius of 10 km from the limits of Porbandar Municipal Corporation. If the contractor wants to use a plant which is a Asphalt, then the contractor has to submit an on a stamp paper of Rs.300 and an MOU with the owner for the usual time frame. Along with this, proofs showing the latest
--- --- --- --- ---
[71] As could be seen from this corrigendum, it is not like as if Clause 4.6.3 was to be substituted and the requirement of an MOU in respect of an asphalt plant was done away with. The corrigendum only added one more clause, i.e., the requirement of having an MoU in respect of a drum mix plant also. Thus, the Corporation required an MoU in respect of an asphalt plant as well as a drum mix plant.
[72] It is settled law that the requirements of the tender inviting authority for executing the work lie within the exclusive domain of the tender inviting authority. It is not for the bidder to determine which of the conditions are necessary or which of the terms are unnecessary. Since admittedly, an MoU in relation to an asphalt plant has not been produced, the bid of Yogi Construction Co. was defective and was correctly rejected by the Corporation.Page 41 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [73] It is also to be noticed here that there was a specific clause regarding site visit, which reads as follows:-
"7. Site Visit 7.1. The Bidder, at the Bidder's own responsibility and risk is encouraged to visit and examine the Site of work and its surrounding and obtain all information that may be necessary for preparing the Bid and entering into a contract for construction of the Works.
The costs of visiting the site shall be at the Bidder's own expense.
7.2 The bidder should visit the site, mentioned in the tender document along with Deputy Municipal Commissioner or his representative before submitting the tender and get the site visit certificate duly signed by City/Municipal Engineer, Porbandar Municipal Corporation. It is mandatory for bidder to submit the Geo-tagged photo of site visit and also upload the site visit certificate duly signed City/Municipal Engineer, Porbandar Municipal Corporation in Annexure-01 (attached separately), without this bid will be considered invalid. The same should be upload with technical bid."
[74] Though Clause 7.1 indicates that the bidder was being encouraged to visit the site and obtain information, Clause 7.2 categorically states that it would be mandatory for the bidder to submit the geo-tagged photo of the site visit and also upload the site visit certificate, which was to be duly signed by the concerned engineer of the Porbandar Municipal Corporation. It was also clearly stated that if this requirement was not satisfied, the bid would be considered invalid.
Page 42 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [75] It is the argument of the Learned Senior counsel Shri Sanjanwala that the engineers of the Corporation were not present when a site visit was actually undertaken by Yogi Construction Co. It is averred in the affidavit-in-rejoinder that representatives of Yogi Construction Co. had visited the office of the Corporation on 23.02.2026 and had intimated the officials that they had visited the spot on 18.02.2026, which was accepted by them and also ratified. It is stated that the absence of a geo-tagged photo was only due to the fact that the officials of the Corporation were not present at the site. It is also sought to be argued that the non-production of a site visit certificate, did not have any bearing on the tender, and thus would be of no consequence and reliance of the Corporation on this aspect of the matter to reject the tender was not justified. This affidavit-in- rejoinder clearly indicates that the requirement of a geo-tagged photo was not complied with along with the tender document. What was sought to be produced was only a site visit certificate, which was signed by two officials, but admittedly was not done by the officials at the site.
[76] In light of the fact that the terms of the tender relating to site visit mandated the production of a geo-tagged photo, and also made it clear that the absence of producing a geo-tagged photo would render the bid invalid, this argument of the learned senior counsel cannot be accepted, and it has to be held that the rejection of the bidder, Yogi Construction Co., was justified. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by Yogi Construction Co., and the same is dismissed.
Page 43 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5436/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined [77] Special Civil Application No.5436 of 2026 filed by M/S R and B Infra Project Limited is allowed and Special Civil Application No.4647 of 2026 filed by Yogi Construction Co. is dismissed.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.) (J. L. ODEDRA, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 44 of 44 Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:42:58 IST 2026