W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 1 of 62

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227

of the Constitution of India, 1950

***

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

(A Government of India Undertaking)

Corporate Office: Belapur Bhavan

Plot No.6, Sector 11, CBD, Belapur

Navi Mumbai – 400 614

Represented through

Sri Upendra Shridhar Shendye

Aged about 57 years

Son of Shridhar Vinayak Shendye

the Authorised Signatory for the petitioner

presently working as

Chief Project Manager-Mechanical

in the Petitioner company. … Petitioner

-VERSUS-

1. East Coast Railway

Represented by

General Manager

At: Samanta Vihar

Bhubaneswar – 751 017

Odisha.

2. Chief Administrative Officer (Con)

East Coast Railway

At: Samanta Vihar

Bhubaneswar – 751 017, Odisha.

3. Chief Engineer (Con)/II/BBS

Office of Chief Administrative Officer (Con)

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 2 of 62

East Coast Railway

At: Samanta Vihar

Bhubaneswar – 751 017

Odisha.

4. M/s. IRCON-JPWIPL JV (JV)

Bid submitted by Authorised Signatory

IRCON International Ltd.

At: C-4, District Centre, Saket

New Delhi – 110 017.

5. M/s. URC - Taikisha JV (JV)

Bid Submitted by Authorised Signatory

URC Construction Pvt Ltd.

At: 119, Power House Road, Erode

Tamil Nadu – 638 001. … Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar,

Senior Advocate

Assisted by

M/s. Ipsit Aurobindo Acharya and

C.K. Rout, Advocates.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi,

Nos.1 to 3 Deputy Solicitor General of India

for High Court of Orissa

Assisted by

Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap

Senior Panel Counsel.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bijoy Krushna Mahanty,

No.4 Senior Advocate

Assisted by

M/s. Abinash Barik and

Adhiraj Mohanty, Advocates.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 3 of 62

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE

MR. HARISH TANDON

AND

HONOURABLE JUSTICE

MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Dates of Hearing : 20.02.2026 and 23.02.2026

::

Date of Judgment: 31.03.2026

JUDGMENT

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

Questioning the propriety in declaring IRCON-JPWIPL

(JV), the opposite party No.4, a successful bidder upon

evaluating the Financial Bid on 08.08.2025 vide

Tabulation Statement of Financial Bids (Annexure-5)

and assailing the legality of action of the Authority

concerned (hereinafter be referred to as ― Tendering

Authority‖) in rejecting the Bid of the petitioner on

08.08.2025 (Annexure-4) on the ground ―Extract of

Board Resolution not attached‖ at the technical

evaluation stage, the instant writ petition beseeching to

invoke power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, reliefs are claimed with the

following prayers:

―In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed

that this Hon‘ble Court may graciously be pleased to

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 4 of 62

issue a Rule NISI in the nature of mandamus and/or any

other appropriate writ/writs, call for the records, call upon

the opposite parties to show cause as to why—

(1) The rejection dated 08.08.2025 vide Annexure-4 of

the petitioner‘s technical bid shall not be quashed;

(2) The status assigned to the opposite party Nos.4 & 5

as L-1 and L-2 respectively pursuant to opening of

financial bids vide Annexure-5 shall not be quashed;

(3) The petitioner shall not be declared the L-1 bidder

for awarding the work under RfP dated 18.01.2025.

And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show

insufficient cause, make the said Rule Nisi absolute;

And further be pleased to pass any other appropriate

order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper;

And allow this Writ Petition;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty

bound ever pray.‖

Facts:

2. The petitioner, a Government of India Undertaking

functioning under the Ministry of Railways having

excellent track record in executing railway works,

participated in Request for Proposal (―RfP‖, for brevity)

dated 18.01.2025 issued by the opposite party Nos.1 to

3, East Coast Railway (Construction Organisation),

inviting prospective bids for ‗Setting up of Infrastructure

facilities for Vande Bharat Express Major Maintenance

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 5 of 62

Depot at Malatipatpur of Khurda Road Division of East

Coast Railway‘

2.1. Though the documents as per specifications and

requirements in the RfP the Bid was submitted, without

any further intimation seeking clarification from the

petitioner the same has been rejected on the ground that

―Extract of Board Resolution not attached‖ vide Rejection

Status uploaded on 08.08.2025.

2.2. It is affirmed by the petitioner that to furnish extract of

Board Resolution is not at all a document asked for as

essential condition of the RfP, dated 18.01.2025, i.e.

documents comprising Technical and Financial Bids.

The petitioner asserted that Clause 2.11(b) of the RfP

requires a person having Power of Attorney for signing

the Bid in the format given at Appendix-II to upload. The

said Clause 2.11(b) refers to Appendix-II, which provides

that the Power of Attorney should be executed by the

person authorised by the Board Resolution of the

Company. However, there is no mention that such Board

Resolution should also be annexed along with the tender

documents of the bidder. Therefore, the petitioner alleges

that rejection of the Bid on 08.08.2025 is untenable,

illogical and illegal and the basis of rejection on the

ground/the reason stated above is not available in the

RfP dated 18.01.2025.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 6 of 62

2.3. It is submitted that in absence of any notice or grant of

opportunity to explain, gross illegality as well as

violation of principles of natural justice has been

committed by the Tendering Authority in rejecting the

Bid on the ground other than the tender conditions. It is

further affirmed that the Tendering Authority never

called upon the petitioner to supply the Board

Resolution before rejecting the techno-commercial bid on

08.08.2025. The petitioner submitted that the Power of

Attorney submitted by the petitioner-Company in its Bid

has been executed by the Chairman and Managing

Director of the petitioner-Company, who is authorised as

per the Meeting dated 29.05.2024 of the Board of

Directors of the petitioner-Company approving the

Delegation of Power to the Chairman and Managing

Director vide Board Resolution Item No.23/181/2024 to

execute the said Power of Attorney.

2.4. The price bids of the two technically qualified bidders

were opened on 08.08.2025, wherein the L-1 price came

out at Rs.375.49 Crore against the estimated cost of

work at Rs.291.78 Crore, whereas the price quoted by

the petitioner-Company is Rs.333.15 Crore, which is

much less compared to the present L-1 price of

Rs.375.49 Crore as also the estimated price.

2.5. Albeit a request for review was placed on 10.08.2025

before the Chief Engineer (Con)/II/BBS in the Office of

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 7 of 62

Chief Administrative Officer (Con), East Coast Railway,

Rail Sadan, Samanta Vihar, Bhubaneswar via e-mail

from Upendra Shendye cpmmech@krcl.co.in to

―cecon2econrbbs‖ cecon2ecorbbs@gmail.com, indicating

frivolous reason ascribed to for rejecting the Bid of the

petitioner, nothing tangible came to fore. Hence, laying

challenge against such arbitrary and illegal rejection of

the petitioner’s Bid on 08.08.2025 (Annexure-4) and also

against the assignment of L-1 status in favour of the

opposite party No.4 (Annexure-5), thereby causing huge

revenue loss to the exchequer, the petitioner has

approached this Court for showing indulgence in the

decision making process of the Tendering Authority.

Counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties:

3. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit

putting forth their stand justifying the ground for

rejection of the Bid at technical evaluation stage.

3.1. The process of tender involved two-stage mechanism.

The first stage is the technical bid which was finalized on

07.08.2025 i.e. strictly in accordance with the terms and

conditions stipulated in the RfP dated 18.01.2025,

issued by the East Coast Railway under Tender Notice

No. EPCCECONIIBBS2024041. The second-stage, i.e.,

financial bid was opened on 08.08.2025 with respect to

those bidders who were qualified in the technical bid as

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 8 of 62

per the terms and conditions set forth in the RfP dated

18.01.2025. As per Clause 3.1.6.1 of the RfP, the bidder

is mandatorily required to furnish a list of documents,

inter alia, including a duly executed Power of Attorney,

failing which the bid would be treated as non-

responsive. This requirement is further reiterated under

Clause 2.11 of the RfP, which categorically emphasized

the necessity of submitting the requisite documents for

both the Technical and the Financial Bids. Paragraph 2

of Clause 2.11.1 explicitly provides that the bidder shall

apply for the RfP through the portal https://ireps.gov.in

by uploading the specified documents along with

―supporting documents‖, which collectively constitute

the Technical Bid. The prescribed format under

Appendix-II specifically requires the Power of Attorney to

be executed by a person duly authorized by a Board

Resolution (in the case of a Firm/Company). It is,

therefore, concomitant condition for the bidder to

establish that the person executing the Power of

Attorney is duly authorized to do so. It is mandatory

requirement under Clause 2.1.4 and Clause 2.1.5 that

proper procedure was to be followed and necessary

documents were to be filed as per format specified in

Appendix-II and as per Clause 2.1.7, ―any condition or

qualification or any other stipulation contained in the Bid

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 9 of 62

shall render the Bid liable to rejection as a non-responsive

Bid

1‖.

3.2. The Notes appended to for specified at Appendix-II

stipulated that ―wherever required‖ the Bidder should

submit for verification the charter documents evidencing

the authority vested in the signatory of the Bid.

Therefore, as in the present case the petitioner has not

submitted Board Resolution from which it would have

been verified the delegation of authority being granted in

favour of the executant of the Bid on behalf of the

company-bidder.

3.3. It is affirmed by way of the counter affidavit that Board

Resolution is a supporting document to establish the

validity of execution of the Power of Attorney in

conformity with the format given at Appendix-II. It

1

Relevant portion of Section 3 dealing with ―EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL BIDS AND

OPENING AND EVALUATION OF FINANCIAL BIDS‖ reads thus:

―3.1. Evaluation of Technical Bids.—

***

3.1.6. Tests of responsiveness:

3.1.6.1 As a first step towards evaluation of Technical Bids, the Auth ority shall

determine whether each Technical Bid is responsive to the requirements of

this RFP. A Technical Bid shall be considered responsive only if:

(a) The Bid is received online as per the format at Appendix-IA

including Annexure I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and Appendix-IB;

(b) All Documents listed at clause 2.11.2 are received physically

within time as mentioned in clause 1.3;

(c) Technical Bid is accompanied by the Bid Security as specified in

Clause 1.2.4 and 2.20;

(d) The Power of Attorney is uploaded on e-procurement portal as

specified in Clauses 2.1.5;

(e) Technical Bid is accompanied by Power of Attorney for Lead

Member of Consortium/Joint Venture and the Joint Bidding

Agreement as specified in Clause 2.1.6, if so required;

(f) Technical Bid contains all the information (complete in all respects) ;

(g) Technical Bid does not contain any condition or qualification. ‖

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 10 of 62

would, therefore, be necessary to verify the sanctity of

the document with respect to delegation of power or sub-

delegation, if any. The petitioner by furnishing

documents along with Bid was required to establish the

sanctity of such document being executed as per Article

of Association.

3.4. Such vital omission(s) while filing the Bid, being

perceived as fatal and found to be non-responsive, there

was justification in rejecting the Bid of the petitioner.

Counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No.4:

4. The opposite party No.4, a Joint venture (JV) of IRCON

International Limited and JPW Infratech Private Limited,

collectively referred to as IRCON-JPWIPL (JV)/opposite

party No.4, being found eligible in the technical

evaluation of the Bid stage, its Financial Bid was

qualified for evaluation along with others, namely the

opposite party No.5. This opposite party-IRCON-JPWIPL

(JV) having quoted the less price as against the opposite

party No.5, with the lowest bid it was declared as L-1.

4.1. The writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the

petitioner had the occasion to avail the benefit of the

Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of Disputes

(AMRD) formulated vide Office Memorandum dated

31.03.2020 issued by the Department of Legal Affairs,

Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, which

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 11 of 62

governs inter-ministerial and Central Public Sector

Enterprises-related disputes.

4.2. Failure to submit the mandatory document, specifically

the extract of the Board Resolution authorizing the

individual executing the Power of Attorney on behalf of

the Bidder, as expressly required under the terms of RfP

entailed rejection of the Bid of the petitioner at technical

round of evaluation. The eligibility of bidders for further

consideration could be available to be examined only if

bidder is found technically qualified and its bid would

proceed to the next stage of the tender process. The

decision-making process being just and proper does not

warrant intervention of this Court in the garb of judicial

review.

4.3. The opposite party No.4 submitted that the bid

evaluation process was carried out in a transparent

manner in two stages: technical and financial. Only

those applicants/bidders found to be qualified in the

first stage (Technical Bid Evaluation), they were

considered eligible for being considered for evaluation of

the Financial Bid. The petitioner’s bid was rejected in the

technical evaluation round, as it failed to meet the

requisite eligibility, and therefore, its Financial Bid

remained unopened, which is consistent with the tender

conditions. The opposite party No.4 was considered as L-

1 based on merit evaluation in both the Technical

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 12 of 62

Evaluation of the Bid and the Financial Evaluation of the

Bid. Being adjudged successful in terms of its eligibility

at the technical evaluation stage, and being the Lowest

Bidder at the stage of opening of the Financial Bid

Evaluation, no arbitrariness or bias or mala fide could

be attributed to the Tendering Authority as the process

was transparent and fair.

Hearing:

5. As the pleadings are completed, the matter was taken up

for final hearing on different dates on the consent of the

counsel for the respective parties.

5.1. Heard Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior Advocate

being assisted by Sri Ipsit Aurobindo Acharya, learned

Advocate for the petitioner; Sri Prasanna Kumar Parhi,

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Sri

Satya Sindhu Kashyap, learned Senior Panel Counsel for

the opposite party Nos.1 to 3; and Sri Bijoy Krushna

Mahanty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by M/s.

Abinash Barik and Adhiraj Mohanty, learned Advocates

for the opposite party No.4.

5.2. Hearing being concluded, the matter was reserved for

preparation and pronouncement of Judgment.

Consideration of arguments on the plea of alternative

remedy:

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 13 of 62

6. At the outset it is felt prudent to take up the issue of

objection as to maintainability of the writ petition as

raised by the opposite parties on the plea of non-availing

of the mechanism for settlement of disputes provided in

the Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2020.

6.1. The Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2020 enclosed as

Annexure-B/1 with the counter affidavit of the opposite

party Nos.1 to 3 reads as follows:

―No.334774/DoLA/AMRD/2019

Government of India

Ministry of Law & Justice

Department of Legal Affairs

***

Shastri Bhawan,

Rajendra Prasad Road,

New Deihi – 110 001.

Dated the 31st March, 2020

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Settlement of disputes other than taxation

between Government Ministries/Departments inter

se and between Government Ministries/

Departments and other Ministries/Departments/

Organisation(s)— Administrative Mechanism for

Resolution of Disputes (AMRD).

Instructions have been issued to Ministries /

Departments of the Governments of India, in the

past to avoid inter-departmental litigations in any

Court of law, including by all

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 14 of 62

CPSEs/Boards/Authorities, etc., under their

Administrative control and to resolve the same

amicably or through Arbitration.

2. In order to provide for an institutionalized

mechanism for resolution of such disputes.

Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs has vide DO

letter No. 332619/338367/LS/2019 dated 28

th

February, 2020 (copy enclosed) advised all

Secretaries to the Government of India that the

existing Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of

Commercial Disputes(AMRCD), currently applicable

to commercial disputes between CPSEs inter se and

also between CPSEs and Government Departments/

Organisations, shall stand extended for resolution of

disputes other than taxation, between

Ministries/Departments inter se and between

Ministries/Departments and other Government

Ministries/Departments/Subordinate/Attached

Offices/Autonomous and Statutory Bodies under

their administrative supervision/control. Details of

the new mechanism, namely. Administrative

Mechanism for Resolution of Disputes (AMRD), are

hereby outlined for guidance.

3. Applicability

AMRD shall apply to any/all dispute(s), other than

those related to taxation, between Central

Government Ministries/Departments inter se and

between Central Government Ministries/

Departments and other Ministries/

Departments/Organisation(s)/Subordinate/

Attached Offices/Autonomous and Statutory Bodies,

etc., under their administrative supervision/control.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 15 of 62

4. Structure

(i) Disputes, other than taxation, shall be referred at

the First level (tier), to a Committee comprising of

Secretaries of the Administrative Ministries/

Departments to which the disputing Parties belong

and Secretary, D/o Legal Affairs;

(ii) The Joint Secretaries (JSs)/Financial Advisors (FAs)

(for commercial disputes) of the two concemed

Administrative Ministries/Departments may

represent the issues, related to the dispute in

question, before the Committee.

(iii) In case the two disputing parties belong to the same

Ministry/Department, the above Committee may

comprise of the Secretary of the administrative

Ministry/Department concerned and Secretary, D/o

Legal Affairs. Secretary, Department of Public

Enterprises may be invited in case the dispute

pertains to a CPSE.

(iv) The resolution of such disputes shall be by

unanimous decision of the Committee.

(v) In case the dispute remains unresolved after

consideration by the Committee, it will be referred at

the Second level (tier), to the Cabinet Secretary,

whose decision will be final and binding on all

concerned.

5. Procedure

(i) At the First level (tier), the claiming party (Claimant)

may be represented, before the Committee, by the

JS/FA of the administrative Ministry/Department.

The Secretary of administrative Ministry/

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 16 of 62

Department of claiming party will inform in writing

the details of the dispute, to the Secretary of

administrative Ministry/Department of responding

party (Respondent) and Secretary, D/o Legal Affairs

and request for convening a meeting. Thereafter

meetings may be held to examine the facts and

resolve the dispute on merit. The JSs/FAs of the

concerned administrative Ministries/Departments

will represent the issues, related to the dispute in

question, before the above Committee. After the

Committee arrives at a decision, it shall be signed by

the members of the Committee. A copy of the

decision will be communicated by the Secretary of

the administrative Ministry/Department of the

claiming party to members of the Committee ^d to

each party to the dispute for implementation.

(ii) The Committee of Secretaries at the First level (tier)

shall finalise its decision within 3 months after

having received the reference/notice in writing

regarding the dispute from the concerned aggrieved

party.

6. Appeal

Any party aggrieved with the decision of the

Committee at the First level (tier) may prefer an

appeal before the Cabinet Secretary at the Second

level (tier) within 15 days from the date of receipt of

decision of the Committee at the First level, whose

decision will be final and binding on all concerned.

7. All administrative Ministries/Departments are

requested to bring these guidelines to the notice of

all Authorities/Boards/Subordinate/Attached

Offices/Autonomous and Statutory Bodies, etc.,

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 17 of 62

under their administrative supervision/control for

strict compliance.

8. This issues with the approval of the Competent

Authority.

(DR. Rajiv Mani)

Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser

Tel. 23384836

***

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Secretary

Department of Legal Affairs

Ministry of Law and Justice

Government of India

No. 332619/338367/LS/2019

Dated 28th February 2020

Dear Secretary,

In a meeting of Committee of Secretaries (CoS)

chaired by Cabinet Secretary on 23.01 2020 the

issues relating to instruction to all Government

Ministries/Departments for the effective

implementation of the existing Administrative

Mechanism for Resolution of CPSES Disputes

(AMRCD) and extension of its applicability to all the

Government Departments/Ministries and CPSES for

resolution of disputes, other than taxation disputes

were discussed The CoS inter-alia recommended

that the existing AMRCD mechanism be made

applicable to disputes other than those related to

taxation, and extended to all

Ministries/Departments.

2. It has been the constant efforts of this Department to

reduce Government litigation in courts so that

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 18 of 62

valuable court time is spent in resolving other

pending cases It has also been endeavour of the

Government to see that disputes between various

Ministries/Departments/CPSEs/Boards/Authorities

under the administrative control of the various

Ministries/Departments do not go to the Court. In

that direction, presently AMRCD is functioning

through the Department of Public Enterprises which

deals with the dispute resolution of CPSEs but

excludes its applicability to the disputes relating to

Railways, Income Tax Customs and Excise

Departments Similarly, in-house mechanism is

working in some other Departments of the

Government mechanism includes Arbitration and

other Alternate Dispute Resolutions Mechanism. In

spite of these instructions, Departments/CPSEs still

resort to court proceedings for settlement of disputes

either with the Government Departments or with

other PSUs.

3. To give effect to the decision taken at the CoS

meeting as per minutes dated 27.01.2020, all the

Ministries/Departments are requested to resolve the

inter-se disputes of various Ministries/Departments/

CPSEs other than those related to taxation, through

existing AMRCD mechanism The Ministries/

Departments are also requested that when any such

dispute is referred for resolution through AMRCD

mechanism, a copy of the same shall also be

endorsed to this Department and further updates

shall be intimated immediately. Ministries/

Departments shall accordingly issue necessary

instructions in this regard, to all CPSEs/Boards/

Authorities under their administrative control.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 19 of 62

Further, the timelines in the laid down process of

AMRCD be also adhered to and complied with.

Warm regards

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

(Anoop Kumar Mendiratta) ‖

6.2. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 in counter affidavit at

paragraph 18 have raised an issue with respect to

approaching Alternative Mechanism for Resolution of

Disputes (―AMRD‖, for short) by highlighting Office

Memorandum dated 31.03.2020 issued by the

Government of India. Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, learned

Senior Advocate strongly opposing such a proposition as

emphasised by Sri Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned

Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the said

opposite parties having not disposed of representation of

the petitioner though the same was filed before the

appropriate authority on 10.08.2025, it is inconceivable

that taking recourse to the AMRD would stop them from

proceeding with the award of the work in favour of the

alleged successful bidder (L-1). It is submitted that the

power of judicial review can pervade to put fetter on the

injustice and unfairness in the process of decision

making in rejecting the Bid of the petitioner.

6.3. To fortify his stand, Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, learned

Senior Advocate referred to Revised Guidelines dated

14.12.2022 issued by Government of India, Ministry of

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 20 of 62

Finance, Department of Public Enterprises (Annexure-7

enclosed with the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner),

relevant portion of which reads as follows:

―No.05/0003/2019/FTS/10937

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Public Enterprises

***

Public Enterprises Bhawan,

Block No.14, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Deihi – 110 003.

Dated the 14

th December, 2022

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Settlement of commercial disputes between

Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) inter se

and CPSE(s) and Government Department(s)/

Organisation(s)— Administrative Mechanism for

Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (AMRCD).

Whereas guidelines for resolution of commercial

disputes between Central Public Sector Enterprises

(CPSEs) inter se and also between CPSES and

Government Departments/Organizations were

issued vide DPE OM No.4(1)/2013-DPE(GM)/FTS-

1835 dated 22nd May, 2018 followed by

clarification dated 4th July, 2018 and 11th July,

2018. These guidelines were further amended vide

DPE OM No. DPE-GM-05/0003/2019-FTS-10937

dated 20.02.2020.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 21 of 62

2. And whereas a need has been felt to streamline the

existing guidelines with a view to consolidate them

and institutionalise a better monitoring mechanism

for faster resolution of disputes.

Now therefore the Revised Guidelines (in

supersession of the aforesaid notifications/Office

Memoranda) shall be as follows:

3. Replacement of PMA and Applicability:

3.1 Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA) stands

wound up from the date of issue of DPE OM dated

22-05-2018. All pending cases with Sole Arbitrator,

PMA and Appellate Authority stand transferred to

concerned administrative Ministries/Departments.

3.2 A decentralised 'Administrative Mechanism for

Resolution of CPSES Disputes' (AMRCD) having two

level (tier) structures shall replace the erstwhile

Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA)

mechanism of DPE.

3.3 Any dispute or difference relating to the

interpretation and application of the provisions of

commercial contract(s) between Central Public Sector

Enterprises (CPSEs)/Port Trusts inter se and also

between CPSEs and Government Departments/

Organizations (excluding disputes relating to

Railways, Income Tax, Customs & Excise

Departments), shall be taken up by either party for

its resolution through AMRCD only.

3.4 No appeals are to be made to Cabinet Secretary in

such matters, including those in which Sole

Arbitrator has passed order before the date of

notification of AMRCD, unless the resolution of the

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 22 of 62

disputes has been considered at the level of

Administrative Ministry/Department as per

procedure prescribed below.

***‖

6.4. It may also be noteworthy that the counsel for the

opposite party No.4 has furnished copy of Office

Memorandum bearing No.DPE-05/0002/2023 —

AMRCD, dated 25.07.2024 issued by the Government of

India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Public

Enterprises under the caption ―Settlement of commercial

disputes between Central Public Sector Enterprises

(CPSEs) inter se CPSE(s) and Government Departments/

Organisation(s)— Administrative Mechanism for

Resolution of CPSE‘s Disputes (AMRCD)‖, which indicates

as follows:

―Para 3.3 of the said OM specified the applicability of

AMRCD Guidelines and stated that any disputes or

difference relating to interpretation and application of the

provisions of commercial contract(s) between Central

Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs)/Port Trusts inter se and

also between CPSE(s) and Government Department(s)/

Organisation(s) (excluding disputes relating to

Railways, Income Tax, Customs and Excise

Departments) shall be taken up by either party for its

resolution through AMRCDS only.‖

6.5. The above paragraph is also reflected in the Office

Memorandum bearing No.DPE-02/0001/2023 —

AMRCD/FTS-13578, dated 17.12.2024 issued by the

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 23 of 62

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of

Public Enterprises. Vide Office Memorandum No.

2024/RS(G)/ 779/5, dated 03.01.2025 issued by the

Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway

Board) it has been clarified as follows:

―The AMRCD mechanism was further streamlined through

the OM dated 14.12.2022 [ref.(iii)], which consolidated the

existing guidelines and introduced an enhanced

monitoring system to expedite dispute resolution. This OM

superseded previous instructions and reiterated the

exclusion of disputes involving Railways, Income Tax,

Customs, or Excise Departments. This exclusion was

further affirmed in the OM dated 25.07.2024 [ref. (v)] and

17.12.2024 [ref.(vi)].‖

6.6. Notwithstanding such Office Memorandum specifying

exclusion of Railways from AMRCD mechanism, Sri

Abinash Barik, learned Advocate attempted to misguide

this Court by placing reliance on an Order dated

01.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in the pending case being Civil Appeal No.1400-

1438 of 2017 [Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vrs. Union of

India], wherein it has been observed that:

―Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as

also learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on

behalf of the Union of India, we find it appropriate that in

a matter of the present nature where the petitioner is a

Public Sector Undertaking and the respondent is Wester

Railways is under the Union of India, we expect that a

situation of this nature should be discussed amongst

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 24 of 62

themselves and a procedure be laid down so that the

matter could be resolved and disputes in future also could

be avoided. For doing so, they may also discuss with

regard to the present claim which has been made and for

an amicable settlement. To know the initiation made in

this regard, list after four weeks.‖

6.7. Visiting the web-portal of the Hon’ble Gujarat High

Court in order to verify the genesis of the said case

relating to above civil appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, it could be noticed that in the case of

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vrs. Union of India, First

Appeal No.3658 of 2014 to First Appeal No.3696 of 2014,

the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered a Judgment on

06.07.2015, wherein the first paragraph reflects that the

case emanates from rejection of claims for refund of

undercharges recovered by the Western Railway for

consignments loaded as Steel (Rounds) booked from

Visakhapatnam to Kankaria, Ahmedabad under Section

16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. There is no

semblance of parity of facts so as to consider

applicability of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India vide Order dated 01.02.2023, cited by Sri

Abinash Barik, learned Advocate, to the present set of

factual matrix.

6.8. Nevertheless, no reply could be given with respect to

exclusion of ―Railway‖ from the purview of the Office

Memorandum dated 31.03.2020 read with Letter dated

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 25 of 62

28.02.2020 and Revised Guidelines of the Ministry of

Finance vide Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2022 and

also subsequent clarificatory letters. The counsel for the

opposite party No.4 could not even explain whether the

petitioner would come within the fold of Letter bearing

No.2024/RS(G)/709/25, date 17.03.2025 issued by the

Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway

Board).

6.9. This Court is reminded of the principle enunciated by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vrs.

Arulmozhi Iniarasu, (2011) 7 SCC 397 with respect to

application of a decision cited or relied upon in

particular fact-situation. It may be pertinent to quote the

following observation contained in the said reported

judgment:

―14. Before examining the first limb of the question,

formulated above, it would be instructive to note, as

a preface, the well-settled principle of law in the

matter of applying precedents that the Court should

not place reliance on decisions without discussing as

to how the fact situation of the case before it fits in

with the fact situation of the decision on which

reliance is placed. The observations of the courts are

neither to be read as Euclid‘s theorems nor as

provisions of statute and that too taken out of their

context. These observations must be read in the

context in which they appear to have been stated.

Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a

decision is not proper because one additional or

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 26 of 62

different fact may make a world of difference

between conclusions in two cases. [Ref. Bharat

Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vrs. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8

SCC 579; Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV) Vrs.

State of Maharashtra, (2008) 1 SCC 494 and

Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. Vrs. Bombay Iron &

Steel Labour Board, (2010) 2 SCC 273.]‖

6.10. Examining the document relating to AMRD as

reproduced hereinabove, it is vividly indicated in the

Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2020 at paragraph 2

that it is formulated in tune with DO Letter

No.332619/338367/LS/2019, dated 28.02.2020. Said

Letter dated 28.02.2020 clearly envisaged that

―In that direction, presently AMRCD [Alternative

Mechanism for Resolution of Central Public Sector

Enterprises] but excludes its applicability to the disputes

relating to Railways, Income Tax, Customs and Excise

Departments of the Government‖.

6.11. From a reading of the contents of Paragraph 3 of the

Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2020 dealing with

―Applicability‖ read in juxtaposition with the Letter dated

28.02.2020 it is evident that AMRD is applicable in

connection with any disputes between the Central

Government Ministries/Departments inter se and

between Central Government Ministries/Departments or

other Ministries/Departments/Organisations/

Subordinate/Attached Offices/Authorities and Statutory

Bodies, etc. ―under the ir administrative

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 27 of 62

supervision/control‖. The dispute as sought to be

agitated here in this case by the petitioner-Konkan

Railway Corporation Limited does not come within the

purview of said Office Memorandum read with the Letter.

Such being the position, it is misconceived and

misdirected on the part of the learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India as also the learned Senior Advocate for

the opposite parties to contend that the petitioner

should not have knocked the doors of the writ Court

directly instead of approaching the authorities to avail

remedy under the AMRCD/AMRD mechanism.

6.12. Since in terms of the Revised Guidelines dated

14.12.2022 of the Ministry of Finance disputes relating

to ―Railway‖ is kept out of the purview of the AMRD/

AMRCD, the objection as to maintainability of writ

petition questioning the decision making process of the

Tendering Authority is overruled.

6.13. With respect to entertainment of the writ petition

involving contractual matters, this Court in Jalaram

Transport Vrs. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, W.P.(C)

No.37718 of 2023, vide Judgment dated 04.02.2026

made the following observation holding that judicial

review is maintainable:

―A plea of demur was taken that the writ petition raising

an issue in relation to a contract is not maintainable

which does not appear to be an absolute fetter in view of

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 28 of 62

the judgment rendered by the apex Court in M.P. Power

Management Company Limited Vrs. Sky Power Southeast

Solar India Private Limited, (2023) 2 SCC 703 in the

following:

―82. We may cull out our conclusions in regard to the

points, which we have framed:

82.1. It is, undoubtedly, true that the writ jurisdiction is a

public law remedy. A matter, which lies entirely

within a private realm of affairs of public body, may

not lend itself for being dealt with under the writ

jurisdiction of the Court.

82.2. The principle laid down in Bareilly Development

Authority Vrs. Ajai Pal Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 116 that

in the case of a non-statutory contract the rights are

governed only by the terms of the contract and the

decisions, which are purported to be followed,

including Radhakrishna Agarwal Vrs. State of Bihar,

(1977) 3 SCC 457] , may not continue to hold good,

in the light of what has been laid down in ABL

International Ltd. Vrs. Export Credit Guarantee

Corpn. Of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 and as

followed in the recent judgment in State of U.P. Vrs.

Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706 = 2020

SCC OnLine SC 847.

82.3. The mere fact that relief is sought under a

contract which is not statutory, will not entitle

the respondent State in a case by itself to ward

off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the

contract, if the complaining party is able to

establish that the action/inaction is, per se,

arbitrary.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 29 of 62

82.4. An action will lie, undoubtedly, when the State

purports to award any largesse and, undoubtedly,

this relates to the stage prior to the contract being

entered into (see Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana

Dayaram Shetty Vrs. International Airport Authority

of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489). This scrutiny, no doubt,

would be undertaken within the nature of the

judicial review, which has been declared in the

decision in Tata Cellular Vrs. Union of India, (1994)

6 SCC 651.

82.5. After the contract is entered into, there can be a

variety of circumstances, which may provide a cause

of action to a party to the contract with the State, to

seek relief by filing a writ petition.

82.6. Without intending to be exhaustive, it may include

the relief of seeking payment of amounts due to the

aggrieved party from the State. The State can,

indeed, be called upon to honour its obligations of

making payment, unless it be that there is a serious

and genuine dispute raised relating to the liability of

the State to make the payment. Such dispute,

ordinarily, would include the contention that the

aggrieved party has not fulfilled its obligations and

the Court finds that such a contention by the State is

not a mere ruse or a pretence.

82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is,

undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in

declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual

matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ

petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend

upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the

petitioner, the questions, which would have to be

decided, and, most importantly, whether there are

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 30 of 62

disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is

necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant

of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no

prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed

questions of fact, particularly when the dispute

surrounds demystifying of documents only, the

Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way

of a civil suit.

82.8. The existence of a provision for arbitration, which is

a forum intended to quicken the pace of dispute

resolution, is viewed as a near bar to the

entertainment of a writ petition [see in this regard,

the view of this Court even in ABL International Ltd.

Vrs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.,

(2004) 3 SCC 553 explaining how it distinguished

the decision of this Court in State of U.P. Vrs. Bridge

& Roof Co. (India) Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 22, by its

observations in SCC para 14 in ABL International

Ltd. Vrs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India

Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553].

82.9. The need to deal with disputed questions of fact,

cannot be made a smokescreen to guillotine a

genuine claim raised in a writ petition, when

actually the resolution of a disputed question of fact

is unnecessary to grant relief to a writ applicant.

82.10. The reach of Article 14 enables a writ

court to deal with arbitrary State action even

after a contract is entered into by the State. A

wide variety of circumstances can generate

causes of action for invoking Article 14. The

Court’s approach in dealing with the same,

would be guided by, undoubtedly, the

overwhelming need to obviate arbitrary State

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 31 of 62

action, in cases where the writ remedy provides

an effective and fair means of preventing

miscarriage of justice arising from palpably

unreasonable action by the State.

82.11. Termination of contract can again arise in a

wide variety of situations. If for instance, a contract

is terminated, by a person, who is demonstrated,

without any need for any argument, to be the

person, who is completely unauthorised to cancel the

contract, there may not be any necessity to drive the

party to the unnecessary ordeal of a prolix and

avoidable round of litigation. The intervention by the

High Court, in such a case, where there is no dispute

to be resolved, would also be conducive in public

interest, apart from ensuring the fundamental right

of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution

of India. When it comes to a challenge to the

termination of a contract by the State, which is a

non-statutory body, which is acting in purported

exercise of the powers/rights under such a contract,

it would be over simplifying a complex issue to lay

down any inflexible rule in favour of the Court

turning away the petitioner to alternate fora.

Ordinarily, the cases of termination of contract by

the State, acting within its contractual domain, may

not lend itself for appropriate redress by the writ

court. This is, undoubtedly, so if the Court is duty

bound to arrive at findings, which involve untying

knots, which are presented by disputed questions of

facts. Undoubtedly, in view of ABL International Ltd.

Vrs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.,

(2004) 3 SCC 553, if resolving the dispute, in a case

of repudiation of a contract, involves only

appreciating the true scope of documentary material

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 32 of 62

in the light of pleadings, the Court may still grant

relief to an applicant. We must enter a caveat. The

Courts are today reeling under the weight of a

docket explosion, which is truly alarming. If a case

involves a large body of documents and the Court is

called upon to enter upon findings of facts and

involves merely the construction of the document, it

may not be an unsound discretion to relegate the

party to the alternate remedy. This is not to deprive

the Court of its constitutional power as laid down in

ABL International Ltd. Vrs. Export Credit Guarantee

Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553. It all

depends upon the facts of each case as to whether,

having regard to the scope of the dispute to be

resolved, whether the Court will still entertain the

petition.

82.12. In a case the State is a party to the contract

and a breach of a contract is alleged against the

State, a civil action in the appropriate forum is,

undoubtedly, maintainable. But this is not the end of

the matter. Having regard to the position of the State

and its duty to act fairly and to eschew arbitrariness

in all its actions, resort to the constitutional remedy

on the cause of action, that the action is arbitrary, is

permissible (see in this regard Shrilekha Vidyarthi

Vrs. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212). However, it

must be made clear that every case involving breach

of contract by the State, cannot be dressed up and

disguised as a case of arbitrary State action. While

the concept of an arbitrary action or inaction cannot

be cribbed or confined to any immutable mantra,

and must be laid bare, with reference to the facts of

each case, it cannot be a mere allegation of breach of

contract that would suffice. What must be involved

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 33 of 62

in the case must be action/inaction, which must be

palpably unreasonable or absolutely irrational and

bereft of any principle. An action, which is

completely mala fide, can hardly be described as a

fair action and may, depending on the facts, amount

to arbitrary action. The question must be posed and

answered by the Court and all we intend to lay

down is that there is a discretion available to the

Court to grant relief in appropriate cases.

82.13. A lodestar, which may illumine the path of the

Court, would be the dimension of public interest

subserved by the Court interfering in the matter,

rather than relegating the matter to the alternate

forum.

82.14. Another relevant criteria is, if the Court has

entertained the matter, then, while it is not tabooed

that the Court should not relegate the party at a

later stage, ordinarily, it would be a germane

consideration, which may persuade the Court to

complete what it had started, provided it is

otherwise a sound exercise of jurisdiction to decide

the matter on merits in the writ petition itself.

82.15. Violation of natural justice has been recognised

as a ground signifying the presence of a public law

element and can found a cause of action premised

on breach of Article 14. (See State of U.P. Vrs. Sudhir

Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706).‖

6.14. Having referred to said reported case in N.P. Power

Management Company Ltd. (Supra) and many other case

laws on the scope of exercise of power of judicial review

in contractual matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 34 of 62

India in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. The

Chief Executive Officer, (2024) 7 SCR 532 stated that:

―58. Thus, the demarcation between a private law

element and public law element in the context of

contractual disputes if any, may be assessed by

ascertaining whether the dispute or the controversy

pertains to the consensual aspect of the contract or

tender in question or not. Judicial review is

permissible to prevent arbitrariness of public

authorities and to ensure that they do not exceed or

abuse their powers in contractual transactions and

requires overseeing the administrative power of

public authorities to award or cancel contracts or

any of its stipulations.

59. Therefore, what can be culled out from the

above is that although disputes arising purely

out of contracts are not amenable to writ

jurisdiction yet keeping in mind the obligation

of the State to act fairly and not arbitrarily or

capriciously, it is now well settled that when

contractual power is being used for public

purpose, it is certainly amenable to judicial

review.‖

6.15. The Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2020 read with

Letter dated 28.02.2020 juxtaposed with the Revised

Guidelines contained in the Office Memorandum dated

14.12.2022 as referred to above along with subsequent

Office Memoranda without any ambiguity reveals that

the disputes qua Railway vis-à-vis the present nature is

sought be kept outside the purview of ―Administrative

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 35 of 62

Mechanism for Resolution of Disputes‖. Therefore, the

present writ petition questioning the decision making

process in assigning arbitrary reason is maintainable. In

such view of the matter, this Court is convinced that the

writ petition is maintainable in the instant case to

consider whether the rejection of the Bid of the petitioner

by the Tendering Authority is tainted with arbitrariness

and unfairness.

Consideration of arguments advanced with respect to

authorisation of the petitioner to submit Bid on behalf of

the company:

7. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by

the opposite party Nos.1 to 3, it is pleaded that the

petitioner having failed to submit the ―supporting

document‖ evincing that the executant of the Power of

Attorney was duly authorised by a valid Board

Resolution, the decision for rejection of the Bid of the

petitioner cannot be faulted with. Quoad ultra, it is

argued by Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior

Advocate that there is no requirement to submit the said

document along with the Bid, unless the same is asked

for at a subsequent date if need be.

7.1. ―Extract of Board Resolution not attached‖ is t he

impugned reason for rejection of the Bid of the petitioner

as is manifested from Annexure-4.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 36 of 62

7.2. Upon scrutiny of papers enclosed to the writ petition it is

transpired that:

a. Board of Directors of Konkan Railway Corporation

Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking under

Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013, in its

Meeting held on 29.05.2024 (Annexure-3) delegated

powers to Sri Santosh Kumar Jha, Chairman and

Managing Director, which inter alia reflects as

follows:

―31. Lastly the Corporation hereby expressly

declares that this Power of Attorney and the

powers and authorities hereby given shall

remain in full force and effect until notice of the

revocation of these presents shall be received

by the Attorney.

The Board of Directors unanimously given

authority to the Chairman to decide the matters

out of the above matters that could be

delegated to the Managing Director and the

Chairman will convey the decision at the

earliest to the Managing Director and the same

would be placed for information of the directors

in the forthcoming Board meeting. Further the

Board of Directors authorized Managing

Director to sub-delegate any of the powers

so entrusted to him to any officer or

officers of the company as per the article

68(2) of the Articles of Association.‖

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 37 of 62

b. Having thus vested with the power of sub-

delegation, ―Power of Attorney for signing of Bid‖

was executed by said Chairman and Managing

Director, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., in

favour of Sri Upendra Shridhar Shendye on

21.02.2025, which is available with the Bid

document at Annexure-2.

c. Being thus authorised Sri Upendra Shridhar

Shendye is stated to have signed the Bid and

submitted for and on behalf of the petitioner-

Company.

7.3. To examine whether there was any necessity to furnish

the ―Extract of Board Resolution‖ along with the Bid

document, reference can be had to relevant clause of

Section 2 of the RfP dealing with ―Instructions to

Bidders‖, which reads as follows:

―Section 2

Instructions to Bidders

A. GENERAL

2.1. General terms of Bidding

***

2.1.4 The Bid shall be furnished in the format

exactly as per Appendix-IA & IB i.e. Technical

Bid as per Appendix IA and Financial Bid as

per Appendix IB and it shall be signed by the

Bidder's authorised signatory. The Bid Price shall

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 38 of 62

be quoted online at the e-procurement platform of the

Authority at [https://www.ireps.gov.in (the ‗IREPS

Website‘)]. In the event of any difference between

figures and words, the amount indicated in words

shall be taken into account.

2.1.5 The Bidder should submit a Power of Attorney

as per the format at Appendix-II, authorising

the signatory of the Bid to commit the Bidder.

2.1.6 In case the Bidder is a Consortium/Joint Venture,

the Members thereof should furnish a Power of

Attorney in favour of the Lead Member in the format

at Appendix III and Joint Bidding Agreement in the

format at Appendix-IV.

2.1.7 Any condition or qualification or any other

stipulation contained in the Bid shall render the Bid

liable to rejection as a non-responsive Bid.

2.1.8 The Bid and all communications in relation to or

concerning the Bidding Documents and the Bid shall

be in English language.‖

7.4. It is not disputed by the opposite parties that as per

Clause 2.1.5 as stated above, the petitioner submitted

Power of Attorney as specified in the format given at

Appendix-II, authorising the signatory of the Bid to

commit the Bidder. The format of Power of Attorney for

signing the Bid vide Appendix-II is as follows:

―Appendix-II

Format for Power of Attorney for signing of Bid

(Refer Clause 2.1.5)

Know all men by these presents,

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 39 of 62

We ………………………… (name of the firm and address of

the registered office) do hereby irrevocably constitute,

nominate, appoint and authorize Mr./Ms. (name),

…………………… son/daughter/wife of ……………………

and presently residing at …………………, who is presently

employed with us/the Lead Member of our

{Consortium/Joint Venture} and holding the position of

…………………, as our true and lawful attorney

(hereinafter referred to as the "Attorney") to do in our

name and on our behalf, all such acts, deeds and things

as are necessary or required in connection with or

incidental to submission of our Bid for the Project

proposed or being developed by the [Railways] (the

‗Authority‘) including but not limited to signing and

submission of all Bids and other documents and writings,

participate in Pre-Bid and other conferences and providing

information/responses to the Authority, representing us in

all matters before the Authority, signing and execution of

all contracts including the EPC agreement and

undertakings consequent to acceptance of our Bid, and

generally dealing with the Authority in all matters in

connection with or relating to or arising out of our Bid for

the said Project and/or upon award thereof to us and/or

until the entering into of the EPC Contract with the

Authority.

AND we hereby agree to ratify and confirm and do hereby

ratify and confirm all acts, deeds and things done or

caused to be done by our said Attorney pursuant to and

in exercise of the powers conferred by this Power of

Attorney and that all acts, deeds and things done by our

said Attorney in exercise of the powers hereby conferred

shall and shall always be deemed to have been done by

us.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 40 of 62

IN WITNESS WHEREOF we, ……………….. the above named

principal have executed this Power of Attorney on this

day of ……2…………

For ………………………………

(Signature, name, designation and address)

of person authorized by Board Resolution

(in case of Firm/Company)/

partner in case of Partnership Firm

Witnesses:

1.

2.

Accepted

…………………

(Signature)

(Name, Title and Address of the Attorney)

(Notarized)

Person identified by me/

personally appeared before me/

Attested/ Authenticated*

(*Notary to specify as applicable)

(Signature Name and Address of the Notary)

Seal of the Notary

Registration No. of the Notary

Date: …………………

Notes:

• The mode of execution of the Power of Attorney

should be in accordance with the procedure, if any,

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 41 of 62

laid down by the applicable law and the charter

documents of the executant(s) and when it is so

required, the same should be under common seal

affixed in accordance with the required procedure.

• Wherever required, the Bidder should submit

for verification the extract of the charter

documents and documents such as a board or

shareholders’ resolution/power of attorney in

favour of the person executing this Power of

Attorney for the delegation of power hereunder

on behalf of the Bidder.

• For a Power of Attorney executed and issued

overseas, the document will also have to be

legalized by the Indian Embassy and notarized in

the jurisdiction where the Power of Attorney is being

issued. However, the Power of Attorney provided by

Bidders from countries that have signed the Hague

Legislation Convention 1961 are not required to be

legalized by the Indian Embassy if it carries a

conforming Appostille certificate.

Note: Paragraphs in curly parenthesis may be omitted by

the Bidder, if not applicable to it, and 'Deleted' may

be indicated there.‖

7.5. It may be highlighted that second point of Note

appended to said Appendix-II employed the words

―Wherever required‖ which is of significance. Black’s Law

Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, St. Paul,

Minn., West Publishing Co. gives the meaning of

―wherever‖ as ―As often as. Moore Vrs. Johnson, 85‖. In

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 42 of 62

the said dictionary, the word ―required‖ is given to

understand as follows:

―To direct, order, demand, instruct, command, claim,

compel, request, need, exact. Beakey Vrs. Knutson, 90 Or.

574, 174 P. 1149, 1150. Union Mut. Ins. Co. Vrs. Page, 65

Okl. 101, 164 P. 116, 117, L.R.A.1918C, 1; State ex rel.

Frohmiller Vrs. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 124 P.2d 768, 773.‖

7.6. The expression ―wherever required‖ in the context of Bid

document is, thus, a conditional one. In the above

perspective, said expression would mean as a

―contingency clause‖; implying thereby that the

submission of charter documents, Board Resolution or

Powers of Attorney is not a sine qua non for uploading

along with the submission of Bid, but the same would be

required to be furnished at the time of demand or

request being made for its production if it is required for

verification.

7.7. Such a perception is fortified by looking at other clauses

forming part of the RfP. In Section 2 of the RfP the

following are the requirements:

―2.11 Documents comprising Technical and Financial

Bid.—

2.11.1 The Bidder shall first upload all the project

details including Technical Capacity, Financial

Capacity, Net Worth details, turnover details, and all

other details required in this RFP for technical

qualification. The Bidder shall ensure that all the

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 43 of 62

details are updated as on the due date of

submission of this Bid.

The Bidder shall then apply for the RfP on the

website https:// ireos.gov.in by submitting the

documents mentioned below along with the

supporting documents which shall comprise of the

Technical Bid on the e-portal:

(a) Appendix-IA including Annexure I-VII and

supporting certificates/documents.

(b) Power of Attorney for signing the Bid as

per the format at Appendix-II;

(c) if applicable, Power of Attorney for Lead

Member of Consortium/Joint Venture as per

the format at Appendix-III;

(d) if applicable. Joint Bidding Agreement for

Consortium/Joint Venture as per the format at

Appendix-IV;

(e) An undertaking from the person having

Power of Attorney referred to in sub-clause

(b) above that they agree and abide by the

Bid Documents uploaded by Authority and

amendments uploaded, if any; and

(f) copy of Memorandum and Articles of

Association, if the Bidder is a body corporate,

and if a partnership then a copy of its

partnership deed.

(g) Copies of duly audited complete annual

accounts of the Bidder or of each member (in

case of Joint Venture/Consortium) for

preceding 5 years.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 44 of 62

(h) Appendix-IB shall be submitted online through

e-procurement portal on or before 12:00.hrs

1ST on ………………..

2.11.2 The Bidder shall submit the following

documents physically within time as mentioned in

Clause 1.3:

(a) Original Power of Attorney for signing the Bid

as per format at Appendix-II;

(b) if applicable, Original Power of Attorney for

Lead Member of Consortium/Joint Venture as

per the format at Appendix-III;

(c) if applicable, Original Joint Bidding Agreement

for Consortium/Joint Venture as per the format

at Appendix-IV;

(d) Bid Security, if submitted as Bank Guarantee,

in the format at Appendix-VII from a Bank.‖

7.8. It is patent from the above clauses that ―supporting

certificates/documents‖ of Appendix -IA including

Annexure-I-VII are required to be submitted while

uploading the Bid document. However, the same does

not include furnishing of extract of Board Resolution

relating to the Power of Attorney for signing the Bid. The

bidder is supposed to furnish ―an undertaking from the

person having Power of Attorney referred to in sub-clause

(b) above that they agree and abide by the Bid Documents

uploaded by Authority and amendments uploaded‖ . In

addition to this, Power of Attorney for signing the Bid ―as

per the format at Appendix-II‖ is only the requirement

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 45 of 62

for submission, which the petitioner had enclosed to the

Bid. The Bidder is required to submit document

―physically‖ ―within the time as mentioned in clause

1.3‖. This clause read along side Note appended to the

Appendix-II gives impression that in the event it is

required/demanded/requested/ordered/directed the

document is required to be submitted. Hence, save and

except Power of Attorney for signing the Bid ―as per the

format at Appendix-II‖ there is no requirement anywhere

to attach the Board Resolution to the Bid document.

7.9. From the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs,

it is, therefore, perceived that the Bid document being

signed by the duly authorised person, the same could

not have been rejected on the specious plea assigned at

Annexure-4. Hence the reason that ―Extract of Board

Resolution not attached‖ is de hors tender condition and

the Tendering Authority transgressed its power in taking

decision to reject the Bid of the petitioner at technical

evaluation stage.

7.10. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and the

learned Senior Advocate and the learned Advocate for

the respective opposite parties made valiant attempt to

justify the rejection of the Bid of the petitioner by

referring to paragraphs 7 and 14 of the counter affidavit

that ―the bidder should submit for verification the extract

of the charter documents and documents such as a Board

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 46 of 62

or Shareholders‘ Resolution/Power of Attorney in favour

of the person executing this Power of Attorney for the

delegation of power hereunder on behalf of the Bidder,

evidencing the authority vested in the signatory of the

said Power of Attorney‖. From the narration of factual

matrix of the case in the foregoing paragraphs it is

discernible that the signatory of the Bid documents had

the competence to sign and he was duly authorised to

sign the Bid document. However, such is not the reason

assigned for rejection of Bid. Only reason which is

assigned is ―Extract of Board Resolution not attached‖. It

is strenuously argued by Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, learned

Senior Advocate, to which this Court subscribes, that

additional grounds/reasons not specified in the RfP

cannot be subsequently pressed into service to justify

rejection of Bid. A new objection has been set out to

justify the action for rejection of the Bid, which is

impermissible in the eye of law.

7.11. In this regard, regard may be had to a Judgment dated

04.02.2026 rendered by this Court in Jalaram Transport

Vrs. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, W.P.(C) No.37718 of

2023, wherein at paragraph 8.4 the following is stated:

―Apart from the same, we notice that the impugned

demand does not reflect any grounds while imposing the

penalty except the shortfall amount required to be

recovered. It has been highlighted in the Constitution

Bench decision rendered in Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. The

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 47 of 62

Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC

405 that it is not open to the authorities to take a different

route, to what has not been taken in the administrative

order nor can be improved by filing a counter affidavit

before Court. The authority cannot wriggle out of the

grounds taken in the impugned action and ultimately

taking a different route to justify such action was

deprecated.‖

7.12. In Kimberley Club Vrs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad,

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2323, it is stated thus:

―Given these circumstances, we are loathe to permit the

1

st respondent-Mandi Parishad to justify the rejection of

appellant‘s technical bid on such additional ground

belatedly taken in the counter affidavit. There is no cavil

that an order of rejection must be sustained on grounds

stated therein and additional grounds cannot be

subsequently pressed into service to justify such rejection.

Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. The Chief Election Commissioner,

New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405 [Para 8]‖

7.13. Apart from the above, in the case of Gayatri-DLF

Consortium Vrs. National Highways Authority, 2011 SCC

OnLine Del 1247 it is held as follows:

―8. In the aforesaid factual matrix two questions arise

for consideration:

i. Whether the Power of Attorney submitted by

the petitioners was defective and/or alleged

defect was of such a nature which could be

termed as a technical irregularity or was it

fatal to the bid?; and

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 48 of 62

ii. Whether respondent No. 1 were entitled to

encash the bank guarantee for the bid security

amount treating the bid of the petitioner as

non-responsive and/or whether the clauses

contained in the RFP in this behalf can be said

to be unconscionable or penal?

***

16. The Power of Attorney submitted with the bid of the

petitioners has been placed on record. There is no

dispute that it is in the proper format as per

Appendix IV. It is also relevant to note that as

per Clause 2.1.10 if the bidder is a consortium

the members thereof are required to furnish a

Power of Attorney “in favour of the Lead

Member” as per Appendix -IV. The manner of

wording of the Power of Attorney also shows that

other members of the consortium whose description

are given and are collectively called as the

‗Principals‘ irrevocably designate, nominate,

constitute, appoint and authorize one of the

members of the consortium whose description is

given therein as the Lead Member to be true and

lawful attorney. Thus, it is in the nature of a

unilateral document by one set of consortium

members in favour of the Lead Member. In the

present case the Lead Member is petitioner No. 2.

The Power of Attorney was executed by petitioner

No. 3 in favour of petitioner No. 2, there being only

two members of the consortium. At the designated

place where Executants have to sign the expression

used is ―(Executants) (To be executed by all the

Members of the Consortium)‖.

***

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 49 of 62

24. We have to also keep in mind the notes given at

the base of the format of the Power of Attorney

which prescribe that the mode of execution of

the Power of Attorney should be in accordance

with the procedure, if any, laid down by the

applicable law. It is in this context that the

Power of Attorney Act has been referred to

aforesaid.

***

28. We may notice that in Poddar Steel Corporation Vrs.

Ganesh Engineering Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273 it was

held that deviations from non-essential or

ancillary/ subsidiary requirement being a

minor technical irregularity can be waived. In

the present case, however, there is not even a minor

technical irregularity which can be stated to arise.

29. The declaration of the bid of the petitioners as non-

responsive on the aforesaid ground is, thus,

completely illegal and set aside. However, the

petitioners did not claim a right to award of the

contract on the first date of hearing itself. Thus, the

only question is the ramification of the same on the

demand of 5 per cent of the Bid Security Amount on

account of the bid of the petitioners having been

declared as non-responsive which would certainly

not arise in view of our finding that the bid is

responsive.‖

7.14. Since it is held that there was no necessity to attach

―Extract of Board Resolution‖ to the Bid, this Court

desists from addressing the additional ground by way of

contention set out by the opposite parties that ―the

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 50 of 62

petitioner failed to submit any supporting document

evidencing that the executant of Power of Attorney

submitted under Appendix-II was duly authorised by a

valid Board Resolution‖ and there was failure ―to

establish that the executant of the Power of Attorney

possessed the requisite authority to execute the same‖.

7.15. The reason that failure to attach the ―Extract of Board

Resolution‖ cannot be fatal for consideration of the

technical bid of the petitioner inasmuch as the signatory

to the Bid had furnished the Power of Attorney as per

the format specified in Appendix-II. It is not the

requirement to attach such document. The Bid of the

petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be non-

responsive.

7.16. Clause 2.16 of Section 2 of the RfP (Instructions to

Bidders) deals with ―Rejection of Bids‖ in the following

terms:

―2.16 Rejection of Bids.—

2.16.1 Notwithstanding anything contained in this

RFP, the Authority reserves the right to reject

any Bid and to annul the Bidding Process and

reject all Bids at any time without any liability

or any obligation for such acceptance, rejection

or annulment, and without assigning any

reasons thereof. In the event that the Authority

rejects or annuls all the Bids, it may, in its

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 51 of 62

discretion, invite all eligible Bidders to submit

fresh Bids hereunder.

2.16.2 The Authority reserves the right not to proceed

with the Bidding Process at any time, without

notice or liability, and to reject any Bid without

assigning any reasons.

2.17 ***

2.18 ***

2.19 Correspondence with the Bidder. —

Save and except as provided in this RFP, the

Authority shall not entertain any

correspondence with any Bidder in relation to

acceptance or rejection of any Bid.‖

7.17. Clause 2.1.7 read with Clause 2.16 makes it abundantly

clear that in the event of non-furnishing of ―supporting

documents‖ and the Power of Attorney is not in specified

format as given at Appendix-II, in terms of Clause 2.15,

it would invite the Bid to be declared non-responsive and

thereby it would entail rejection of the Bid. Nevertheless,

it is not the case of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 that the

petitioner did not furnish the Power of Attorney in the

format specified at Appendix-II.

7.18. Referring to Clause 2.19 extracted supra Sri Rudra

Prasad Kar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that it

would not be in the imagination of any bidder to assume

what was in the minds of the Tendering Authority.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 52 of 62

Having submitted the requisite documents as required

under the conditions stipulated in the RfP, such a clause

would not come to assist the case of the opposite parties;

rather had the case been improper documents being

detected, such a clause could be invoked by the

authority concerned. Requirement to submit ―supporting

documents‖ is restricted to Appendix-IA and Annexures-

I-VII, but it cannot be said to have extended to a

document submitted in consonance with format

specified in Appendix-II. This Court, as discussed above,

finds force in such submission and would wish to have

regard to the following observation of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Maha

Mineral Mining & Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Madhya

Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., (2025) 9 SCR 528:

―3. As NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. could not furnish

earnest money deposit, only the appellant and the

2nd respondent remained in the fray. On

04.07.2024, the Tender Evaluation Committee while

referring to Clause 5(D)

2 of the NIT rejected the

appellant‘s technical bid holding as follows–

2

Clause 5(D):

―Past Experience: Copies of successfully executed orders (including part executed)

in the name of bidder for same or similar work {similar work means coal lifting

from mines of CIL subsidiaries or SCCL area, coal beneficiation (through wet

process), movement of washed coal by road from washery to railway siding and

movement of washed coal through Railways with experience in liaisoning with

Railways/ CIL subsidiaries or SCCL area, i.e., arranging rakes, dispatches coal

from own or leased Private siding or Goods shed Railways siding by loading of

washed coal into railway wagons through own arrangement with monito ring the

rake movement etc. up to the destination Power house}. Bidder is allowed to use

past experience of their previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in

that consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 53 of 62

‗As per Clause No. 5(D) ―Past experience criteria‖ of

NIT, bidder is allowed to use past experience of their

previous Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share

in that consortium if defined in the Consortium

Agreement, otherwise, lead partner if not defined in

the Consortium) to meet out the past experience

criteria of the tender. The firm has used the

credentials of their consortium M/s Hind-Maha-

Mineral LLP for meeting out the past experience

criteria. However, Agreement of the Consortium/ JV

is not submitted to substantiate the share of the

bidder in that consortium. Bidder is disqualified due

to non-submission of credentials as per Clause No.

(5)D of the NIT.‘

***

14. First, let us consider whether the decision of the

High Court to uphold the appellant‘s disqualification

under Clause 5(D) for not furnishing JV agreement is

justified or not?

15. Clause 5(D) of the NIT required the bidders to furnish

documents relating to past-experience in similar

work. The clause further provided that ―bidder is

allowed to use past experience of their previous

not defined in the Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria of the

tender. The order copies should indicate the above w/ork for 4 Lakh MT (4,00,000

MT) quantity or more in stale Owned Power Generating Companies or Other

Captive Power Utilities of PSU or NTPC or Govt. Industries / Departments or Semi

Govt. Industries / Departments or PSUs or Nodal Agency of any PSUs in India

executed in last five years ending with initial date of opening of bid are to be

uploaded. This order execution should be within a period of twelve (12) months. It

may be through single or multiple orders (in parallel), but in case of multiple

orders; these should be within a single span of time period of twelve (12) months.

1. The work execution certificate by the customers along-with self-attes ted

un-priced copies of aforesaid work order(s) should be submitted.

2. For Past performance certificates - If worked with MPEB/ MPSEB/

MPPGCL in past for similar work, then it is mandatory to provide

Satisfactory Performance Certificate for the same. Failing this, the offer

shall not be considered.‖

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 54 of 62

Consortium or JV (proportionate to its share in that

consortium if defined in the Consortium Agreement,

otherwise, lead partner if not defined in the

Consortium) to meet out the past experience criteria

of the tender.‖ Sub-clause 1 and 2 of the said clause

stated the following documents are to be submitted:

‗1. The work execution certificate by the customers

along-with self-attested un-priced copies of

aforesaid work order(s) should be submitted.

2. For Past performance certificates - If worked

with MPEB/ MPSEB/ MPPGCL in past for

similar work, then it is mandatory to provide

Satisfactory Performance Certificate for the

same. Failing this, the offer shall not be

considered.‘

Appellants had submitted a work execution

certificate from MSMC along with its bid to support

its past-experience as a 45% proportionate member

of a consortium/JV for similar work executed at

WCL in the last five years. The relevant portion of

the certificate reads as follows:***

16. The aforesaid certificate clearly demonstrates that

the appellant had 45% share in a JV consortium

namely M/s Hind Maha Mineral LLP and had

successfully executed work of similar nature as

required by Clause 5(D) of the NIT

***

18. Though the submission of a JV agreement has not

been expressly stated in the aforesaid clause, the

respondents argue that the proportionate share of a

bidder in a consortium/JV can only be established

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 55 of 62

through production of the JV agreement itself and

the words used in the contract/tender document

must be read in a purposive manner so that no part

of the document is rendered superfluous.

Respondents further contend appellant had

submitted its bid on the last day and it was open to

the appellant during the previous calls to seek

clarification whether submission of JV agreement

was mandatory. Appellant did not do so and

intentionally suppressed the JV agreement while

submitting its bid to avoid disclosure of inconvenient

clauses in the JV agreement. This is evident from the

appellant‘s conduct as it had after submission of

bid, emailed a purported JV agreement dated

06.09.2019, whereas the JV agreement mentioned

in the certificate was a different one. Be that as it

may, the subsequent submission of a JV agreement

could not have been considered in light of Clause 8.1

read with circular dated 29.11.2023.

19. We are unable to accept such arguments for the

following reasons:

(i) Clause 5(D) merely states the appellant would

be entitled to use the past-experience of a

previous consortium/JV in the event its

proportionate share is defined in the JV

agreement failing which the past-experience

shall be attributed to the lead partner. The

clause does not mandate the submission of the

JV agreement itself to satisfy such criteria.

Appellant had relied on the work execution

certificate issued by MSMC which in no

uncertain terms states the appellant had 45%

share in the JV consortium named M/s Hind

Maha Mineral LLP and successfully executed

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 56 of 62

similar work of a volume larger than required

under the clause. The certificate also

mentioned the JV agreement had been

submitted and was in the custody of MSMC.

(ii) It is nobody‘s case that the 1st respondent had

doubted the authenticity of the certificate but

had disqualified the appellant on the ground

that Clause 5(D) mandated furnishing of the JV

agreement alone and nothing else to prove

proportionate share in a previous JV in order to

use such experience.

(iii) Conditions in a NIT must be clear and

unambiguous. In the event the tendering

authority insisted on furnishing of the JV

agreement alone and no other document as

proof of the proportionate share of the bidder to

avail previous JV experience as prior

qualification, it should have been spelt out

clearly in the NIT. Having not done so, the 1st

respondent cannot thrust the responsibility on

the appellant to seek clarification and submit

such document. As Clause 5(D) does not

require submission of JV agreement itself to

establish proportionate share in the JV whose

past-experience the bidder is seeking to use,

nonsubmission of such JV cannot be a ground

to disqualify the bidder for submission of

incomplete documents in terms of Clause 8.1 of

NIT. Admittedly, the appellant had submitted

the work execution certificate, as required

under clause 5(D), which also unequivocally

sets out its proportionate share in the JV

agreement whose prior experience it had relied

on.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 57 of 62

***

20. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold the

1st respondent acted contrary to the terms of the NIT

and unfairly rejected the appellant‘s bid for non-

production of JV agreement although Clause 5(D) did

not prescribe production of such agreement as

mandatory to rely on past-experience of such

consortium in which the bidder had a defined

proportionate share.

21. Accordingly, decision of the Committee, upheld by

the High Court as per Clause 5(D) is liable to be set

aside.‖

7.19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India having followed

above decision in Kimberley Club Vrs. Krishi Utpadan

Mandi Parishad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2323 , the

argument of learned Senior Advocate proceeded further

to indicate that if the authority wanted any document(s)

to be uploaded or furnished/submitted, it ought to have

said so in unequivocal terms.

7.20. Conjoint reading of above clauses with Clause 2.11.1,

Clause 2.11.2 and Clause 1.3 would unambiguously

lead to conclude that except Appendix-IA including

Annexure-I-VII, nothing is forthcoming to suggest that

―supporting document‖ showing ―Power of Attorney for

signing the Bid‖ is to be submitted while uploading the

Bid; nonetheless, said document is to be submitted in

the specified format as given at Appendix-II. It remained

uncontroverted by the opposite parties that the

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 58 of 62

petitioner has submitted such Power of Attorney in the

specified format. Had the document like Board

Resolution been required for ―verification‖ by the

Tendering Authority, the same could have been asked for

production ―physically within the time as mentioned in

Clause 1.3‖ by adhering to Clause 2.11.2 of the RfP. The

―Original Power of Attorney for signing the Bid as per

format at Appendix-II‖ is to be submitted ―physically

within the time as mentioned in Clause 1.3‖. Clear

intention of the authority is ex facie manifest from the

Notes appended to the Appendix-II. The words ―wherever

required‖ used therein is to be understood in the said

context. Save and except such manner of presenting the

documents, nowhere it is made mandatory for

attachment of ―Extract of Board Resolution‖ to the Bid.

The decision of the authority is inexplicable and the

rejection of Bid at technical evaluation stage on the

ground stated at Annexure-4 cannot withstand judicial

scrutiny. The contention of learned Senior Advocate for

the petitioner that submission of Resolution of Board is

not a sine qua non condition deserves to be acceded to.

Revenue loss:

8. Much stress is laid by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 on

the contents of paragraph 28 of counter affidavit. It is

submitted that delay is caused for commencement of the

work on account of the petitioner, a Government of India

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 59 of 62

Undertaking, in pursuing the matter before this Court;

thereby heavy revenue loss would ensue. Apropos such

contention Sri Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior

Advocate would submit that the arbitrary decision and

illogical reason assigning non-attachment of ―Extract of

Board Resolution‖ which is not contemplated under the

RfP are the causes for the delay attributable to the

Tendering Authority. In furtherance to such plea, he

would urge that the petitioner has quoted around Rs.42

crores less than the estimated cost of around Rs.291

crores. He has taken this Court to have a glance at

Tabulation Statement of Financial Bids (Annexure-5

enclosed with writ petition).

8.1. A bare perusal of said document would reveal that the

opposite party No.4-IRCON-JPWIPL JV (declared as ―L-

1‖) quoted the Bid Amount at Rs.375,49,16,820.00. In

the representation dated 10.08.2025 (Annexure-6) the

petitioner while requesting the authority to review the

decision of rejecting its Technical Bid on 07.08.2025,

clarified that it quoted Bid value at Rs.333.15 crores. It

is thus emphasised that having expertise in the field,

and quoted much less price than the estimated cost as

well as the price quoted by L-1 bidder, the contention of

the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India would be

contrary to material on record. By not considering the

Financial Bid of the petitioner and rejecting the Bid on a

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 60 of 62

non-existing ground at technical evaluation stage would

demonstrate that the revenue loss has been caused by

such arbitrary action and unsolicited decision of the

Tendering Authority.

Conclusion:

9. Having discussed the gamut of the factual matrix

obtained in the case coupled with legal perspective on

the subject-matter, it is held that:

i. The writ Court is not prevented or interdicted from

exercising the power of judicial review in the

matters relating to tenders qua Government and

Public Sector Undertakings/Government of India

Enterprises.

ii. To require a document to be furnished as a

supporting evidence, the Tendering Authority is

required to spell out the same in specific

unequivocal terms; in absence of which failure to

enclose such document would not entail rejection

of Bid;

iii. Mandatory conditions are required to be explicitly

specified in the RfP;

iv. The reason assigned to reject the Bid cannot

supported with the additional explanation by the

opposite parties;

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 61 of 62

v. The reason ascribed for rejection of the Bid should

be a ground mentioned in the RfP. While examining

the propriety of decision making process of the

Tendering Authority, it is impermissible to travel

beyond the reasons given to disqualify the bidder

(petitioner).

9.1. In the instant case there is no iota of evidence to suggest

that in absence of non-furnishing of Extract of Board

Resolution would lead to rejection of the Bid at technical

evaluation stage. Since there is nothing placed on record

by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 to demonstrate that the

petitioner failed to furnish Power of Attorney authorising

him to sign the Bid in the format specified in Appendix-II

with reference to Clause 2.1.5 of RfP, the reason for

rejection of Bid that ―Extract of Board Resolution not

attached‖ cannot be sustained.

9.2. Having adverted to each point of argument advanced by

the counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the

considered view that the decision making process of the

Tendering Authority is tainted with arbitrariness and

without due application of conscientious mind.

Therefore, the decision of the Tendering Authority

concerned on 08.08.2025 (Annexure-4) rejecting the Bid

of the petitioner at technical evaluation stage is set

aside.

W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2025 Page 62 of 62

9.3. Having set aside the decision to reject the Bid of the

petitioner (Annexure-4), the matter is, therefore,

remitted to the Tendering Authority by restoring it to

technical evaluation stage and the process shall now

continue from there.

9.4. The authority considering the Bid of the petitioner shall

evaluate the Bid along with others and take a decision

thereon within a period of six weeks from date.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ

petition is disposed of and pending interlocutory

application(s), if any, is disposed of accordingly, but in

the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

I agree.

(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 31

st March, 2026/Bichi/MRS