JABALPUR, India, Oct. 16 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 15:
1. Petitioner impugns the qualification requirement stipulated in Clauses4 of the E-Auction/Catalogue issued by the respondent No.2 and seeks a mandamus on the respondents to permit the petitioner and other similarly situated bidders who participate in the E-Auction.
2. Respondent No.3 has issued E-Auction/Catalogue inviting bids for dismantling and sale of balance retired units No.6, 7, 8 and 9 of Satpura Thermal Power Station, MPPGL, Sarni on " as is where is, as available basis, clean sweep and no complaint basis". The tender document specifically provides that the successful buyer shall submit a plan for dismantling/demolishing/transportation of dismantled material and accessories. The scope of work as envisaged by the tender document is for dismantling the retired power plants and removal from site of the entire dismantle material including a clean sweep.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that as per the Manual of Procurement of Goods, Second Edition, 2024 there is no requirement of prescribing any eligibility criteria for participating in the tender by any tender inviting authority. He further submits that the only requirement that can be prescribed is furnishing of an earnest money deposit and any entity who can furnish an earnest money deposit is to be permitted to participate in the tender process and the eligibility criteria prescribed of having a past experience is contrary to Manual of Procurement of Goods issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner very candidly submits that petitioner does not have any experience of dismantling or removal of any retired unit of a Thermal Power Station and is merely a person dealing in scrap material.
5. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for petitioner for the reason that petitioner has not filed the complete Manual of Procurement of Goods on record. The manual which is available on the online clearly shows that there can be a prescription of an eligibility criteria however, the restriction is that eligibility criteria should not be framed in a manner to oust competition. In the instant case, the respondents have fixed a past experience criteria of dismantling of retiring power plant with one or more units having install capacity of 200 MW each or above as also past experience in financial terms. In the instant case, the respondents are seeking to dismantle and sell balance retired units 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Satpura Thermal Power Station having install capacity of 200 MW or above. It may be noticed that the retired units are situated in the same complex where functional units are also situated and as such as per the requirements, expertise is necessary in the present case for dismantling the retired units so as the functioning of the operational units is not hampered in any manner.
6. We are further unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Manual for Procurement of Goods prescribed that no eligibility criteria can be fixed by any government department while inviting any tender. It is settled position of law that tender inviting authority has the power to prescribe eligibility criteria to oust non serious player or people who have no experience especially in cases where a specialized work is to be executed.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that the subject tender is only for removal of scrap. This is contrary to a very tender document which provides for dismantling and sale of balance retired units of a Thermal Power Station, the tender document itself provides that the successful bidder shall have to provide a plan for dismantling, demolishing, transportation of dismantled material.
8. Reference may be also had to the judgment of this Court dated 25.08.2025 in Symcom Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Com. Ltd. and Ors. (WP No.32974 of 2025) whereas, this Court has also considered the challenge in respect of the same tender to the eligibility criteria and held that the eligibility criteria is reasonable and does not warrant any interference. In the said judgment this Court has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216 holding that the government and their undertaking must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and unless the tender is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the Court would not interfere in the same.
9. We find no merit in the petition, the petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
