JABALPUR, India, Feb. 25 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Jan. 27:

1. Petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of Letter of Acceptance dated 06.08.2025, whereby the entire tender has been awarded to Respondent No. 3. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the award of tender by applying the correct Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) Order, 2012 thereby awarding 75% of the work to the Petitioner (L1) and 25% to the L2 (MSE, other than Respondent No. 3).

2. Respondent No. 1 - Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL), issued an e-tender for 62.05 lakh tonnes of coal transportation from specified seams to Spur-I Siding, including loading into trucks / wagons, for two years. The result of the tender was declared on the website of GeM and the Bid submitted by the Petitioner was declared as L1 (lowest) in the financial evaluation. However, the tender was awarded to Respondent No. 3 i.e. the L2 bidder by treating it as an MSE within a price band of L1 + 15% under the Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) Order, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the MSE Order 2012.

3. Petitioner has impugned the award of tender to Respondent No. 3 on the ground that it could not have been treated as an MSE. It is contended that the Turnover of the Respondent No. 3 for the Financial Year 2021-2022 was 47.078 Crores and for the Financial Years 2022- 2023 and 2023-2024 was Rs. 118.978 Crores and 145.373 Crores respectively. It is submitted that as on the bid submission date the limits applicable were Micro less than or equal to 5 cores, Small less than or equal to 50 Crores and Medium less than or equal to 250 Crores. The limits were revised on 01.04.2025. It is contended that as the turnover of Respondent No. 3 exceeded Rs. 50 Crores it was a Medium Enterprise and thus not eligible to the benefit as MSE. 4. It is further submitted that L2 was wrongly extended the MSE preference. If the tender had been treated as split able, only 25% could go to L2 (on price match) and 75% to the Petitioner (L1). By labeling the tender "non split able.'' Respondents No. 1 and 2 enabled the entire contract to be diverted to L2. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 3 has formed a new company with a new GST and new PAN. He submits that Respondent No. 3 has obtained the tender by using a micro status but using the credentials of other company which has hundreds of cores turnover. It is submitted that as Respondent No. 3 has relied upon the work experience of the previous concern, it could not have obtained the benefit of the MSE Order 2012.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WP/34302/WP_34302_2025_FinalOrder_27-01-2026.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.