News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 200 | 2026:CGHC:12243-DB
March 13, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Raipur-based infrastructure company challenging the rejection of its technical bid in a coal mining equipment tender issued by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). The court held that the tendering authority acted within the terms of the tender conditions when it concluded that the equipment proposed by the bidder was not “newly developed” as required under the tender.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered the judgment while hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Mosh Varaya Infraprojects Private Limited against the Union of India, Coal India Limited, SECL and others.
The dispute arose from an e-tender issued by SECL on April 29, 2025 for introducing a newly developed low-height indigenous continuous miner for underground coal extraction at the Bagdewa mine in Korba. The petitioner company submitted its technical and financial bids through the GeM portal in July 2025.
During the technical evaluation process, SECL rejected the petitioner’s bid on January 9, 2026 on the ground that the equipment offered by the company did not satisfy the mandatory requirement that the machine must be “newly developed and not deployed at any mine in India.” The petitioner had proposed a continuous miner model MC-350 manufactured by Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
According to the petitioner, the machine offered in the tender was a newly developed indigenous version with over 57 percent local content and had never been deployed in Indian mines. The company argued that the tender committee rejected its bid merely because the model name resembled an earlier imported version, without considering technical differences between the two variants. It also claimed that the authorities acted arbitrarily and failed to provide a fair opportunity to clarify the issue.
However, SECL and Coal India Limited told the court that the tender clearly required equipment that had never been deployed in any Indian mine. The tender committee found that the same MC-350 model had already been deployed at the Haldibari underground mine of SECL, making it ineligible under the trial tender conditions.
The respondents further pointed out that a pre-bid clarification issued on July 12, 2025 had explicitly stated that bidders could not offer a machine of the same model if it had already been deployed in India. Since the petitioner submitted its bid after this clarification was published, it was bound by the condition.
The petitioner had earlier raised a complaint before the Independent External Monitors (IEMs), who examined the matter and upheld the decision of the tender committee. The IEMs concluded that the rejection of the bid was consistent with the tender terms and the pre-bid clarification issued by SECL.
After reviewing the records, the High Court held that the central issue in the case was the interpretation of the tender condition requiring the equipment to be “newly developed.” The court noted that the tender committee found the MC-350 model had already been deployed in Indian mines and therefore did not meet the eligibility requirement.
The bench emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited and courts should not substitute their views for those of technical experts responsible for evaluating bids. It observed that the authority issuing the tender is best placed to interpret its conditions and determine whether a bidder meets the technical requirements.
The court also observed that the purpose of the trial tender was to test newly developed indigenous technology that had not yet been used in Indian underground coal mines. Allowing participation of equipment models already deployed in the country would defeat the objective of encouraging new technology under the Make-in-India policy framework.
Finding no arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or procedural irregularity in the evaluation process, the High Court declined to interfere with the decision of the tender committee and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Reference : WPC No. 237 of 2026, M/s Mosh Varaya Infraprojects Private Limited vs Union of India & Others; Counsel: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shikhar Shrivastava and Mr. Akshat Agrawal for the Petitioner; Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General for Respondent No. 1; Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Singh for Respondents No. 2 to 4; and Mr. B.P. Sharma with Mr. M.L. Sakat and Mr. Raza Ali for Respondent No. 5.
