Madhya Pradesh High Court
Konnect Packaging International Llp vs Security Printing And Minting ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198
1 WP-32443-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32443 of 2025
KONNECT PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL LLP
Versus
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA
LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kabeer Paul - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Khandekar - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri Abhishek Gulatee - Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 and 4.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 31/07/2025 (Annexure-P/1), whereby respondents have declared the petitioner disqualified in technical bid.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a registered Startup and MSME and is exempted from past experience requirements under prevailing Policies i.e. Public Procurement Policy for MSMEs, 2012. Petitioner is engaged in the business of cardboard manufacturing and is entitled to get protection flowing from Part III of the Constitution of India being its fundamental right. The Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL), a wholly owned Schedule A Mini Ratna Category-I Company of Government of India, was incorporated on 13th January 2006, which falls within the definition of State under Article 12 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 2 WP-32443-2025 the Constitution of India. The management, control, maintenance and operations of erstwhile 9 production units under the Currency and Coinage Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, was transferred to SPMCIL with effect from 10th February, 2006. SPMCIL is engaged in manufacture/ production of Currency and Bank Notes, Security Paper, Non-Judicial Stamp Papers, Postal Stamps and Stationery, Travel documents i.e., Passport, Visa, Security certificates, Cheques, Bonds, Warrant, Special Certificates with security features, Security Inks, normal circulation and commemorative coins, Medallions, Refining of Gold and Silver and Assay of Precious Metals. The respondent, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL) issued a tender bearing No.GEM/2024/B/5314830 on the Government E- Market Place, dated 20th September 2024, for the work titled as "Procurement of Cardboard sheet ". Total quantity required by the respondent was 1.44 L.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents themselves have submitted a report that bidder firm is an MSME, therefore firm is exempted from past experience. But firm has provided past sales and purchase invoices for various products. Petitioner was informed by an E-mail dated 02/01/2025 asking it to submit experience documents but they were not properly considered by the Authorities and thereafter on 27th March, 2025, again an E-mail was received stating that they have not received any response from the petitioner for site visit and they would be sending their representatives on 5th April 2025 and if the petitioner does not confirm the same, petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 3 WP-32443-2025 would be disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings. Petitioner sent an E-mail on 28th March 2025, stating that he has already sent an E- mail on 20th February 2025 acknowledging their site visit which the Authorities failed to consider. Petitioner has also sent a clarification on 28th March 2025 correcting factual aspects clarifying that manufacturing unit is located in Borgaon, M.P. and not in Nagpur as mistakenly mentioned, and providing evidence of prior communication regarding site visit but to the surprise of the petitioner, he was served with a communication on 31st July 2025 from the portal, which shows that petitioner was disqualified in technical bit as firm is not found capable in capacity and capability for manufacturing of tender items.
4. It is argued that the entire proceedings have not been carried out in transparent manner. The production capacity of the petitioner is 2MT per day which is more than 10 times the amount/ quantity that has been sought by the respondents in NIT i.e. 57,600 Kg/ Annual and the same has already been confirmed by the respondents during spot inspection on 05/04/2024. It is further pointed out that the capability of the petitioner cannot be objected by the respondents as the tender document itself exempts the petitioner from past performance coupled with the fact that spot inspection was already carried out by the Authorities and no such objection was raised at any point of time. It is further pointed out that the expert committee report has not been taken into consideration by the Authorities and till date, the fresh tender has not been finalized. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have filed a detailed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 4 WP-32443-2025 reply in the matter. They have denied all the averments of the petition. It is contended that the petitioner has placed undue emphasis on the Experience and Past Performance Criteria and the same has been taken into consideration while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that petitioner does not have capability and capacity to manufacture tender items and has been disqualified for this reason and past performance of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration. In pursuance to the issuance of NIT through GeM Portal for procurement of cardboard sheets. 8 firms participated including that of the petitioner. Clause 5 of Note 2 of the Bid documents shows that SPM can visit the factory of bidder during techno-commercial bid stage to ascertain the bidder manufacturing capability and quality control methodology. Since the petitioner firm, M/s Konnect Packaging International LPP Nagpur and firm M/s RBR Speciality Paper INE Vapi had participated for the first time in the tender, therefore their capability and capacity verification was got done as per the tender conditions. A 3-members Committee was constituted to evaluate capability and capacity of the petitioner and M/s RBR Speciality Paper INE Vapi in terms of the parameters enumerated in Annexure 29.1(D) of SPMCIL Procurement Manual 3.0, 2024. The 3-members Committee visited the manufacturing unit and office of the petitioner located at Borgaon M.P. on 05/04/2025 and conducted capability and capacity verification and thereafter, a detailed report was submitted on 15/04/2025 before the competent authority of SPM, wherein it was observed that the petitioner firm does not have PE coating facility, raw material testing, process and quality Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 5 WP-32443-2025 control facility. It is also observed in the report dated 15/04/2025 that the petitioner declared that they will purchase the rolls of tendered goods and only cutting and packing will be done in its manufacturing plant. Therefore, Committee opined that presently the petitioner firm does not have the capability and capacity to manufacture the tendered items. During the capability and capacity verification on 05/04/2025, petitioner has submitted Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09/02/2025 for lab testing which is claimed to be executed between the petitioner and M/s Narang Metallurgical & Spectro Services LLP located at Delhi. The said MoU dated 09/02/2025 is signed only by the representative of the petitioner, hence such MoU cannot be considered valid in the eyes of law. Therefore, the averments made in paragraph 5.11 and 5.12 of petition are misleading to the extent that the disqualification was done on the basis of past experience. Furthermore, the petitioner has falsified the declaration in its bid documents regarding machineries available at its manufacturing unit. Petitioner submitted Qualification/ Eligibility Criteria declaration dated 17/11/2024 and list of machinery wherein petitioner had declared that it has coating machine. During capability and capacity verification on 05/04/2025, it was found that list of machinery provided and certified by the petitioner does not have any coating machine in its manufacturing. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Authorities and after assigning the reasons the petitioner was declared to be disqualified from participation.
6 . Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has heavily relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 6 WP-32443-2025 Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2021 (4) M.P.L.J. 428 in support of his arguments and has further argued that the scope of interference in tender matters is limited. They have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents and has also filed an application being I.A. No.19224/2025, for amendment along with affidavit wherein petitioner wants to make amendment in the Writ Petition owing to subsequent development as the documents filed along with the reply are required to be challenged. By way of amendment, he has also put to challenge the report dated 15/04/2025 along with all consequential and incidental measures.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The sole question which comes up for consideration is regarding the interference to be made in tender matters after disqualification of the petitioner in technical bid.
10. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the NIT floated by the respondents, petitioner and seven others have participated in the bid process. The NIT contains qualification/ eligibility criteria as reflected from the bid document, which reads as under:-
"QUALIFICATION/ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:
(i) Experience & Past Performance:
The bidder (manufacturer or principal of authorized representative- hereinafter referred simply as 'The Bidder') should have manufactured and supplied average yearly quantity of at least 57,600 KG Card Board sheet in any one of the last five years ending on 31.03.2024 .
(Note: 'Start-ups and Micro and Small Enterprises' are Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 7 WP-32443-2025 exempted from 'Experience and Past Performance Criteria')
(ii) Capability Equipment & Manufacturing Facilities:
a) The bidder must have an annual capacity to manufacture .and supply at least 57,600 KG.
b) The bidder has to submit the following details along with the bid (In case of Raw Materials):
i) Name of the machine utilized to supply the quoted product.
ii) The number of machines being utilized for the production and the capacity of each machine.
iii) Total Annual capacity of Manufacturer.
iv) Supply orders in hand and proportionate capacity to supply quoted amount."
11. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the bidder must be manufacturing and supplying and is required to disclose the name of the machines and the number of machines being utilized for production and capacity of each machine. The simple and plain reading clearly shows that the bidder ought to be a manufacturer of the cardboard sheets with PE coating and must have machines for that purpose.
12. The contention raised by the petitioner that there is no requirement under the NIT for having a dedicated PE coating facility of the machine is misplaced in view of the specific provision under the NIT. Further, clause 5 of Note 2 provides that "If required SPM may visit the factory during techno- commercial bid stage to ascertain the bidder manufacturing capability and quality control methodology". If there would have been no requirement of manufacturing cardboard sheets with dedicated PE coating facility, then there would be no purpose for inserting such a provision of inspection of the factory or the premises or the manufacturing unit of the bidder.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 8 WP-32443-2025
"14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 ) was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous - they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word "metro" in Clause 4.2(a) of section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.
15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there i s mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."
1 4 . It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as M/s RBR Speciality Paper INE Vapi have participated for the first time in the tender and their capability and capacity verification was required to be done as per the tender document. It is also seen that the bidder has to maintain quality and deliver the tender item as per delivery schedule of 90 days as specified in the clause 5 of note 2 of the tender document. The respondents can order delivery of complete tender items within 90 days from the date of issue of contract as reflected in clause 13. The same reads as under:-
"13.Delivery Schedule: Delivery Schedule shall be in staggered manner as per below:
(01 year (365 days) from the date of Gem order)
1. The supplier has to supply Minimum 1000 KG ± 5 % of pilot supply as per technical specification within 30 days after issue of Gem contract.
2. After acceptance of pilot supply from SPM, SPM will inform for supply of material as per requirement and firm will supply the material within 60 days from date of intimation by SPM via mail/letter.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 9 WP-32443-2025 Note: Quantities mentioned above are illustrative / indicative and not exhaustive; the actual requirement may vary (increase / decrease) as per the need."
15. A 3-members Committee visited the petitioner's factory in order to evaluate the capability and capacity of petitioner and found that petitioner's firm does have PE coating facility, raw material testing capacity and quality control facility. The petitioner will purchase the rolls of tender goods and only cutting and packing will be done in the manufacturing plant, meaning thereby the petitioner will not be carrying out the manufacturing work. Thereafter, after due verification the report was submitted by the 3-members Committee. The perusal of the report shows that around 24 parameters were taken note of by the Authorities while considering the case of the petitioner and the petitioner's manufacturing unit failed to satisfy the verification Committee on parameters enumerated in the report. The relevant extracts are as under:-
"B. M/s Konnect Packaging International LLP (Pg no. 49 - 85) The committee has visited the manufacturing unit and office of M/s Konnect Packaging International LLP located at Borgaon, M.P on 05.04.2025, On visiting the plant, Committee has witnessed that the firm does not have PE coating facility, raw material testing, quality control facility. Also, Firm has declared that it will purchase the rolls of tendered goods and only cutting & packing will be done in its manufacturing plant therefore committee opined that presently firm does not have capability and capacity to manufacture the tendered goods. (Photos of plant and Capability & Capacity report is attached herewith)"
16. From the perusal of document Annexure-R/4, it is apparently clear that a detailed examination of the petitioner firm was carried out by the Authorities and they found that the petitioner is not fulfilling all the required criteria as mentioned in the tender document. Therefore, the candidature of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 10 WP-32443-2025 the petitioner was rightly rejected.
17. The scope of judicial review in the cases of tenders was recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 , wherein it has been held as under:-
"48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is dutybound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489)."Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 11 WP-32443-2025 1 8 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 has held as under:-
"7. ............... The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene."
1 9 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2008) 16 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 12 WP-32443-2025 SCC 215 while dealing with the scope of judicial review of the constitutional Courts, held that in matters of highly technical nature, a high degree of care, precision and strict adherence to requirements of bid is necessary. Decision making process of Government or its instrumentality should exclude remotest possibility of discrimination, arbitrariness and favoritism. It should be transparent, fair, bona fide and in public interest. However, the Supreme Court clearly held therein that it is not possible to rewrite entries in bid document and read into the bid document terms that did not exist therein, nor is it permissible to improve upon the bid originally made by a bidder. Power of judicial review can only be exercised when the decision making process is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably or lawfully could have taken such decision, but if it is bona fide and in public interest, Court will not interfere with the same in exercise of power of judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. Principles of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of such commercial transactions.
2 0 . In the case of Montecarlo Ltd. v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., reported in 2016 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 15 : (2016) 15 SCC 272 , the appellant participated in the tender process pursuant to the NIT issued by respondent and as the appellant did not meet with technical qualifications prescribed, his bid was treated non- responsive. The appellant approached the High Court challenging action of respondent, but the High Court declined to interfere. The Supreme Court held that judicial review of decision making process is permissible only if it suffers from arbitrariness or mala fides or procedure adopted is to favour one. But if decision is taken Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 13 WP-32443-2025 according to language of tender document or decision subserves purpose of tender, then Courts must exercise principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by Courts would be impermissible. Principles of interpretation of tender documents involving technical works and projects requiring special skills are different from interpretation of contractual instruments relating to other branches of law. It was held that the tender inviting authorities should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be free hand in exercising discretion. Tender inviting authorities have discretion to enter into contract under some special circumstances and there has to be judicial restraint in administrative action. The Courts do not have expertise to correct administrative decisions and if Courts are permitted to review such decisions then Courts are substituting their own view without there being necessary expertise, which may be fallible. If decision is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts would not interfere even if there is procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to tenderer.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 , delineated the scope of interference by the Constitutional Courts in 'the matter of Government Contracts/Tenders by observing that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. There are however inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is always the guardian of the finances of the State and it is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 14 WP-32443-2025 any other tender is always available to the Government, but the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or rejecting a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation and the right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive process. The Supreme Court held that it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The power of judicial review is not an appeal from the decision and therefore, the Court cannot substitute its decision since the Court does not have the necessary expertise to review. Apart from the fact that the Court is hardly equipped to do so, it would not be desirable either. However, where the selection or rejection is arbitrary, certainly the Court would interfere. But it is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator.
22. The judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Air India Ltd. (supra), Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Montecarlo Ltd. (supra) and Tata Cellular (supra) were taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held as under:-
"24. Moreover, in the fact situation obtaining in the present case, decision of the respondents treating the bid submitted by the petitioner as technically non- responsive can neither be said to be mala fide nor Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 15 WP-32443-2025 intended to favour someone. It cannot be termed so arbitrary or irrational which no responsible body of person acting under law could on available facts arrive at. It is trite that when power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. If as per conditions of the NIT, the bidder was required to have experience of having successfully (i) executed; (ii) completed; and (iii) commissioned, in this case, one similar work of aggregate cost not less than the amount equal to 50% of the value of the work in question during last five financial years, the bidder has to necessarily possess experience showing that he has not only executed and completed but also commissioned one complete work of that much value. It is settled proposition of law that the words used in the tender document as conditions of acceptability of technical bid have to be construed in the way the employer has used them while formulating such terms and conditions, therefore, the interpretation of the employer in that respect has to be accepted unless it is so obnoxious that it defies reason and logic and is not a possible interpretation on the language used in formulation of the conditions. Moreover, whether a particular condition is essential or not also is a decision to be taken by the employer. The tender inviting authorities have to be allowed greater play in the joints not only in formulating the terms and conditions of tender but also in interpreting them. No words in the tender documents can be treated as surplusage or superfluous or redundant. The decision of the employer has to be respected by the Court unless it is shown to be ex-facie arbitrary, outrageous, and highly unreasonable. If non-fulfillment of the mandatory conditions of eligibility conditions of the terms of the NIT results in the bid submitted by a particular bidder being rendered non-responsive, the Court cannot substitute the opinion of the employer by its own unless interpretation of such condition by the tender inviting authority suffers from mala fides or perversity."
2 3 . If the aforesaid principles and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court are applied in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55198 16 WP-32443-2025 facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the detailed report submitted by a 3-members Committee after due inspection of the petitioner's premises, then no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The scope of judicial interference in tender matters is limited.
2 4 . The petition sans merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 04-11-2025 17:20:32