CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION LTD AND ANR. versus M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ORS.
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 974, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 974 
A 
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
B 
CORPORATION LTD AND ANR. 
v. 
MIS AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4248 of 2017) 
MARCH 09, 2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Tenders - Technical evaluation - Challenge to - Chhattisgarh 
C 
State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (CS/DC) floated 
tender with respect to work relating to upgradation of infrastructure 
- Tenders opened for determining whether the bidders satisfied the 
pre-qualification criteria - CS/DC prepared .charts of technical 
evaluation documents and placed before the Tender Evaluation 
Committee - Committee selected two bidders ranked as L-1 and L-2 
D 
- Respondent was disqualified - Aggrieved, writ petition filed by 
respondent on ground that L-2 had been found eligible despite not 
having a Hot Mix Plant - High Court held that L-2 was made to 
qualify in spite of the fact that it wqs not having Hot Mix Plant and 
there was discrepancy in the document of technical evaluation filed 
E 
by the CS/DC and the one filed by respondent with respect to Hot 
Mix Plant, therefore L-2 was illegally included in the qualified list 
of bidders and thus, contract granted to L-1 was quashed - On 
appeal, held: Opinion of High Court cannot be accepted as relevant 
tender documents were not placed for consideration before High 
Court - Also, Hot Mix Plant was not a mandatory requirement so as 
to open the financial bid - Thus, the financial bids of two bidders 
who
succeeded at the pre-qualification stage had been rightly .opened 
and considered - In absence of malafide or arbitrariness which is 
not made out in the instant case as 50 per cent of the work had 
been completed when the order was passed by the High Court, hence 
·G 
H 
no interference was warranted in the present case - Insofar, as 
document relied upon by the CS/DC is concerned, as per report of 
cyber crime cell there is no manipulation therein - Respondent was 
disqualified and had not questioned the qualification of the 
successful bidder, L-1 bufthat of L-2, on ground that financial bid 
. was illegally opened - It was a fight between the tenderers involving 
. 974
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
975 
CORPORATION LTD v. MIS AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
no· element of public interest - Respondent was trying for re-
A 
tendering to cater its business interest by seeking disqualification 
ofL-2 to whom the contract had not been given - The Court has to 
be loath in such matter to make intetference. 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4248 
of 2017. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2017 of the High Court 
ofChhattisgarh atBilaspur in W. P. (C) No. 1053 of2016 
WITH 
C. A. No. 4251 of2017. 
Mukul Rohatagi, AG, Apoorv Kurup, A. C. Boxipatro, Ashish 
Kumar Sinha, Ratan K. Singh, S. Abhishek, Aishwary Tiwary, Nishank 
Tyagi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellants. 
Garvesh Kabra, A. H. Lohiya, S. 0. Tapidya, Amit Singh, 
c 
Ms. Pooja Kabra, Advs. for the Respondents. 
D 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The appeals have been preferred by Chhattisgarh State 
E 
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short, 'the CSIDC') and 
Mis. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and 
order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in 
Writ Petition (C) No. I 053 of2016 thereby allowing the same and quashing 
the contract given to Mis. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. by the CSIDC 
F 
with respect to the work of "upgradation of i,nfrastructure i.e. roads, 
drainage system and water supply in Sirgitti under Modified Industrial
Infrastructure Up-gradation Scheme (MIIUS) at Sirgitti, Bililspur." 
3. Tender was floated by the CSIDC on 3.11.2015 forthe aforesaid 
work within the stipulated time period of 18 months and tenders were . G 
invited online, to be submitted by 12.01.2016. 
4. A writ petition bearing WP(C) No.227 of 2016, was filed 
challenging the notice inviting tenders issued by the CSIDC and the 
same was dismissed vide order dated 2.2.2016 by the High Court of 
H
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. The online bids were submitted. The CSIDC 
opened the tenders for determining whether the bidders satisfied the 
pre-qualification criteria. Based upon the information supplied by the 
bidders, the CSIDC prepared charts of technical evaluation documents 
in the form of Annexures 'A' 'B' 'C' and 'D' which were signed by the 
B 
c 
Chief Executive Engineer and placed before the Tender Evaluation 
Committee in its meeting held on 03.03.2016. The CSIDC filed a 
Technical Evaluation Sheet asAnnexures R-4/3 and 5/3 which was placed 
before the Technical Evaluation Committee whereas the petitioner in 
the High Court i.e. Mis. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. filed the document 
"Annexure P-4" as technical evaluation document. 
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the documents of technical 
evaluation filed by CSIDC were signed by the Executive Engineer and 
the document filed by Mis. Amar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure · 
P-4 does not bear signatures of any official. 
6. On 3.3.2016, Tender Evaluation Committee considered the 
D 
matter and had drawn the minutes which is signed by Mr. S. Rajgire, 
Executive Engineer Division-IV, Mr. G.V.S.P. Rao, Deputy Manager 
(Accounts) and Mr. Abdul Shakil, Chief Engineer. Two bidders namely; 
Mis. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chhindwara and M/s. Raipur 
E 
F 
Construction Pvt. Ltd. were found qualified. It has been opined by .the 
Evaluation Committee that they
fulfill all the requisite qualifications. 
Hence, it was resolved unanimously to open the financial bids of the 
· aforesaid two bidders. The financial bids were ultimately opened on 
5.3.2016. The bid submitted by Mis. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd.was 
ranked as L-1 as compared to that of Mis. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. 
Ltd. Chhindwara whose bid was ranked as L-2. Ultimately the bid L-1 
of Mis. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. had been accepted on 8.7.2016 
and work order had been issued by the CSIDC to Mis. Raipur Construction 
Pvt. Ltd. 
7. The petitioner/respondent herein, namely, Mis. Amar 
Infrastructure Ltd. was disqualified on the ground that its construction 
G 
experience was not found as per the requisite criteria indicated in 
experience certificate, quantity ofDLC (M-10) i.e. 3194 cum submitted 
under the key activities of construction experience of requisite quantity 
of work done was not in accordance with the nomenclature of PWD 
SOR. In the nomenclature ofDLC in SOR there was no M-20 type of 
H
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
977 
CORPORATION LTD v. MIS AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
concrete, as such the amount ofDLC as presented in the certificate had 
A 
been rejected. 
8. It is pertinent to mention that Writ Petition No.664of2016 was 
filed before the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur by Mis. B.B. 
Verma, who was also one of the unsuccessful bidders, against the CSIDC 
and others. In the said writ petition, the CSIDC had filed its reply dated 
B 
14.3.2016 and had submitted the document dated 3.3.2016 i.e. the chart 
containing technical evaluation in which the aforesaid facts were 
mentioned. The writ petition preferred by Mis. B.B. Verma was ultimately 
dismissed by the High Court ofChhatisgarh vide order dated 15.03.2016. 
9. However, Mis. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. filed a representation 
on 1.4.2016 not against the successful bidder but against Mis. Arcons 
Construction Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that it had been found eligible for 
opening financial bid despite not having a Hot Mix -Plant. After the 
writ petition in question was filed on 8.4.2016 in the High Court, reply 
was filed by the CSIDC on 7.7.2016. 
10. The High Court, considering the discrepancy in the document 
of technical evaluation which was filed by the Mis. Amar Infrastructure 
Limited and the one filed by the CSIDC, had vide order dated 28.07.2016 
directed the Superintendent of Police, Raipur to depute an independent 
and competent officer from the Cyber Crime Cell of the State
Police to 
inspect, examine and analyse the data available on the computer of the 
CSIDC and to determine the following points: 
"I. What was the initial bid document e-filed by Respondent No.6. 
2. Whether in the tender document submitted by respondent no.6, 
the list of plant and machinery contained hot mix plant or not? 
Whether said list was certified by the authorised signatory or not? 
3. The concerned Officer will after examining the documents also 
determine whether the documentAnnexure-Pl4 has been prepared 
on the computer of the CSIDC or not? 
c 
D 
E 
F 
4. The officer shall also intimate the date of preparation of the 
G 
documentAnnexure R4,513 filed by the CSIDC and clearly intimate 
when the document was initially prepared and if any changes 
were made to this document then on what date. Report be 
submitted to this Court within a period of 6 weeks from today." 
H
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
11. Pursuant to the order, the report was filed in the High Court 
on 9.11.2016. The report submitted by the Cyber Crime Cell is extracted · 
hereunder: 
"In the compliance of above command, three hard disks were 
confiscated and tested from the computers ofCSIDC by the Cyber 
B 
Specialist Police headquarters, Raipur and a document was 
received by the help of chips. After testing following results were 
obtained: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I. Information related to point no.0 I is attached in page 115. 
2. Information related to point no.02 is attached on 115 page and 
on page no. 57 a list of all documents in e-tender created through 
respondent no.6 are present which does not contain any mentioning 
of hot mix plant and in this list a seal of company and signature is 
used in the place of authorised signatory. 
3. According to the compliance of information on point no.3 and 
no.4 a hard disk was confiscated from computer no.3 which has 
a description as foflows: . 
(A) of Hitachi Company SIR no. 0138264JPT3MAOCOA, 30 
G.B. 
. 
. 
(B) of HC Company S/R No. OA33535BS I 9570C7A, I 64G.B. 
(C) ofWestem Digital Company S/R No.WCAYUA915673, 164 
G.B. 
Confiscated Hard disk was tested by Cyber Crime Expert. 
The information of point no. 03 and 04 of the Test report is as 
follows: 
Point No. (3)-DocumentAnnexure P/4 is created on the computer 
ofCSIDC,which is located in the Computers' Hitachi Company 
hard· disk who's SIR No. is OA
39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320 G.B. 
in the file named Annexure -Bb, Last modified Date -06~03.2016. 
Time :-4.46 P.M, the found file is of 80 K.B. which contain 08 
pages. The information related to annexure: P/4 was.found in the 
pagenos.6,7,8. 
The information related to point no. ( 4) is found in the file Annexure 
-A Last modified Date: 14.01.2016 Time 12.33 P.M. which was
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
979 
CORPORATION LTD v. M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
located in the CSIDC hard disk of Hitachi Compay who's serial 
A 
no. is OA39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320 G.B. According to which 
documentAnnexure R-4, 5/3 is presented in respected court which 
is a "Techical Evaluation" chart and in the column of tender form 
price in the column no.2 of the tender form, the D.D. number 
deposited by the companies taking place in tender is clearly 
mentioned as well the name of the banks are clearly mentioned. 
But the file obtained from the hard disk "technical evaluation" 
chart who is named as Annexure R-4, 5/3 contains only the D.D. 
No and does not contain any bank name, in this way, both files 
have differences in them. 
B 
The information related to "Technical Evaluation" Chart 
C 
Annexure "B" is located in the file .named Annexure -B, Last 
modified Date: 04-07-2016 time-02.08 P.M. which is situated in 
the Hitachi Company Hard disk who's S/R No. is 
OA39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320 G.B. the sixe of the file is 24 K.B. 
and contains 02k pages. The attachment for Supreme Court and 
D 
file found in Hard disk have no differences. 
The information related to "Technical Evaluation" Chart 
· Annexure "C" is located in the· file named Anne~ure -C, Last 
modified Date: 04.07.2016 time- 02.09 P.M. which is situated in 
the Hitachi Company Hard disk who's S/R no. is 
E 
OA39264JPT3MAOCOA, 320 G.B. the size of the file is 29.7 
K.B. andk contains 02 pages. The
attachment for Supreme Court 
and file found in Hard disk have no differences. 
The perusal of Document Test reports (I/pages) and C.D.'s. 
as well as chips concluded by the Cyber Celll Specialist is 
F 
submitted. 
Attachment : As per above points." 
12. The report was filed on 11.11.2016 and the High Court has 
found that the document which were placed on record; one filed by the 
CSIDC and other filed by the appellant were substantially different with 
G 
respect to the fact whether_ Hot Mix Plant was owned by Mis. Arcons 
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and also that modification had been made in the 
document on 4. 7.2016. Thus, the High Court had opined that L-2 tenderer 
basically was not qualified to participate and had been made to qualify 
H
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
for opening of its financial bid in order to give the contract anyhow or 
somehow to Mis. Raipur Construction Pvt. Ltd. It concluded that Mis. 
Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was illegally included in the qualified list 
of bidders by the Technical Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 
3.3.2016, and thus, the contract granted to Mis. Raipur Construction 
B 
c 
Pvt. Ltd. has been quashed and at the same time further police 
investigation has been ordered so as to fix the responsibility for the 
manipulations made in the document filed by the CSIDC and/or by Mis. 
Amar Infrastructure Ltd. 
13. Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred in this 
Court. 
14. Mr. Mukul Rohatagi, leamedAttorney General alongwith Mr. 
Apoorv Kurup, Mr. A.C. Boxipatro and Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, 
appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that there is no 
manipulation in the Technical Evaluation Bid Sheet and pre-qualification 
criteria was fulfilled by both the tenderers whose financial bids were 
D 
opened. Owning Hot Mix Plant was not a mandatory condition and thus 
it could not be said that the technical evaluation was illegal in any manner 
whatsoever. The financial bids of the qualified tenderers were required 
to be opened and Hot Mix Plant was not in the list of plant and equipments 
which were necessary to be possessed to qualify at the pre-qualification 
E 
stage. 
15. It was also submitted by the learned Attorney General
that 
the High Court has unnecessarily doubted the documents of Technical · 
Evaluation Sheet placed on record by the CSIDC. It had" been filed 
within seven days of the finalisation of the financial bid in the High Court 
F 
ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the writ application which was preferred 
by Mis. B.B. Verma which was dismissed on 15.3.2016 relying upon the 
very same documents which have been filed by the CSIDC in the instant 
writ application also. The document which has been filed by Mis. Amar 
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is not signed by anybody and even iftaken to be 
an assessment made with respect to the entire tender documents by 
G 
CSIDC, hot mix plant being not a pre-requisite and essential to be 
possessed for opening of the financial bid, the reasoning employed by 
the High Court that L-2 was got qualified only in order to ensure that 
financial bid of L-1 could be opened so that it would not be left as the 
only tenderer, whose financial bid then could not have been opened being 
H
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
981 
CORPORATION LTD v. M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
only bidder in the fray and re-tendering would have been necessitated, 
A 
falls down. 
16. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 
the respondent ingeniously submitted that other tenderer had been 
disqualified namely; Mis. Anil Buildcon (I) Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of not 
possessing the requisite 'concrete paver' and it is apparent from the 
B 
Technical Evaluation Sheet filed by the respondent as P-4 that the L-2 
tenderer Mis. ArcQns Infrastruct\.\re PY1:. Ltd. did not possess Hot Mix 
Plant at the time of submitting the tender which fact was noted in the 
requisite column of the evaluation sheet (P4). He has also submitted 
that it was necessary to submit all the documents alongwith the tender 
forms including what were mentioned in Schedule D Section V. Thus, it 
C 
was submitted by the learned counsel that there had been manipulation 
made at the instance of the CSIDC as Technical Evaluation Sheet filed 
by CSIDC does not tally with the technical evaluation document filed by 
the petitioner before the High Court. It appears that manipulation had 
been done in the document as observed by the. High Court on 41h July, 
D 
2016. The High Court has rightly disqualified L-2, and thus it became 
necessary to invite the fresh bids as per the prevailing norms. 
Consequently, the order had been passed by the High Court, keeping in 
view the report of the Cyber
Crime Cell. Hence no case for interference 
is made out in the appeals. The order passed by the High Court is on 
proper consideration. 
17. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to 
consider the tender document itself and the requirements for pre-
qualification. Whether having Hot Mix Plant was necessary qualification? 
In the tender document, list is given, the same is extracted as under : 
"(a) Only Schedule A and Section 1 of Schedule Dare to be filled 
& signed by the tenderer 
(b) All the certificates as per pre qualification criteria shall be 
appended with relevant forms of schedule "D". 
E 
F 
1. PART ONE (CSIDC F-I)-(Attached herewith, to be submit 
G 
along the tender) 
(a) Press notice & corrigendum 
(b) Detailed NIT 
H
982 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(a) Schedule A 
(i) Cost Abstract 
(ii) Bill of Quantities 
(b) Schedule B- NIL 
(c) Schedule C-NIL 
( d) Schedule D 
Part (b) 
Section I .... Technical tender forms 
(i) Letter of Technical Tender 
(ii) Tenderer's Information Sheet 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
D 
(iii) Annual Turnover 
E 
F 
(iv) Specific Construction Experiences 
(v) Declaration 
(vi) Check list for Technical tender evaluation 
Section II. Scope of work 
Section Ill. Technical specifications of work 
Section IV. Special conditions of contract 
Section V. List ofapproved makes." 
(emphasis added by us) 
18. The tender inviting notice requires certain documents to be 
mandatorily submitted online. The list of the documents as contained in 
G 
para I of the tender notice is extracted hereinbelow: 
H 
"It is mandatory to submit the following online: 
(A) Details of Earnest money in FD (in favour ofM.D.C.S.l.D.C. 
Raipur) from any nationalised bank.
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
983 
CORPORATION LTD v. MIS AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
(B) Valid registration of CTI VAT and VAT clearance certificate/ A 
it return acknowledgment. 
(C ) Letter of technical tender. 
(d) Tender's information sheet. 
(E) Specific Construction Experience. 
(F) Construction Experience in key activities, 
(G) List ofkeyplants & equipment certificate, available with the . 
bidder/lease or rented. (List enclosed). 
(H) Declaration check list for technical tender evaluation. 
(I) All desired document should be attested by Notary. 
(J) All desired document scan copy submitted to Online should 
B 
c 
· also to be submitted physically by post in separate envelope. Any D 
additional documents which are not submitted online but submitted 
physically will not be accepted. 
(K) PAN No. details. 
(L) Copy of valid registration in CGPWD/Central/State/Semi Govt. 
Of India or PSU of appropriate clause. 
(M) Tenderer has to submit audited balance sheets of their financial 
tum over/accounts along with profit & Loss account for the any 
three (3) year out of last five (5) years. 
E 
(N) The contractor shall submit list-0fworks which are in hand. 
F 
(0) Affidavit in Original should be in prescribed format regarding 
that given all the informations are true must be attached on Rs. I 00/-
Nonjudicial stamp paper." 
(emphasis added by us) 
G 
19. It is apparent that list of plant and machinery as "available" 
with the bidder, on lease or rented, was to be
enclosed. It is apparent 
that L-2 did not mention that Hot Mix Plant was available with it. It has 
H
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
to be considered whether Hot Mix Plant was necessary for opening of 
the financial bid. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
20. The detailed notice inviting tenders required a tender to be 
submitted in three envelopes in the following manner: 
"SUBMISSION 
TENDER 
DOCUM&NTS 
OF 1. Tender documents to be submitted in three 
envelopes marked A,B & C on line as per 
mentioned key dates on portal of 
https://csidc.cgeprocurenment.gov.in 
Envelope A will contain earnest money 
Envelope B 
technical qualification/details 
required for qualification as per NIT and other 
. details 
Envelope C shall have financial offer. 
2. For technical qualification, eligibility criteria 
an earnest money the document submitted on 
line shall only be treated as final submission 
of document. Any physical submission of 
extra paper/document shall not be 
taken 
for 
consideration 
for 
Technical 
qualification/eligibility criteria. 
PLACE AND DATE The tenders shall be opened at the office of 
OF 
OPENING OF Managing Director, 
CSIDC, First Floor, 
TENDER 
Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road no. 1, Telibandha, 
Raipur 9C.G) as 
mentioned in key dates. 
After 
that Envelop (C) of only eligible 
applicants will be opened on the same day or 
any suitable date of the qualified tenderers 
only. 
21. In tabular form the originally scheduled dates were given for 
opening the envelopes which is extracted herein below :
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
985 
CORPORATION LTD v. MIS AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
Seq, CSIDC Stage 
Supplier 
Start Date & Expiry Date Envelops 
No. 
Stage 
Time 
&Time 
7. 
Open 
01/01/2016 
02/01/2016 
Technical 
Envelope 
-A 
from 
10.00 from 
17.00 Envelope 
(PQ Technical 
A.M. 
P.M. 
& Commercial 
Detail) 
8. 
Evaluation 
01/01/2016 
02/01/2016 
Technical 
and 
from 
10.00 from 
17.00 Envelope 
Shortlisting of 
A.M. 
P.M. 
Envelope-A 
9. 
Open 
04/01/2016 
04/01/2016 
Price Bid 
Envelope-C 
from 
10.00 from 
17.00 Envelope 
(Price Bid) 
A.M. 
P.M. 
10. 
Fill 
04/01/2016 
04/01/2016 
Priee Bid 
Negotiated from 
17.01 from 
17.02 Envelope 
Rates 
A.M. 
P.M. 
11. 
Evaluation 
04/01/2016 
08/01/2016 . Price Bid 
and 
from 
17.03 from 
17.04 Envelope 
Shortlisting of 
A.M. 
P.M. 
Envelope-C 
12. 
Tender Award 
08/01/2016 
12/01/2016 
Technical 
from 
17.05 from 
17.06 Envelope 
A.M. 
P.M 
Price Bid 
Envelope 
22. Tender was to be submitted in three envelopes 'A', 'B' & 'C'. 
Envelope' A' to contain earnest money. Envelope 'B' to contain technical 
qualifications/ details required for qualification as per NIT and other 
details. Envelope 'C' to contain financial offer. 
23. Pre-qualification criteria has been dealt with in Clause 2 of 
the detailed NIT. The same is extracted as below: 
"2. Pre-Qualification criteria: To be eligible under the contract, 
the intending tenderer should meet the following mandatory criteria: 
2.1 Financial Criteria 
Average Annual
Turnover: As per C.G. Govt. PWD Circular No. 
F21-7/T/2017 dated 02/03/2015 achieved in "any one financial 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
986 
A 
B 
c 
A 
D 
B 
E 
F 
c 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
year" a financial turnover in mentioned clauses of civil engineering 
construction works) of construction work of at least 60%(Sixty 
percent)of the probable amount of contract for which bid has 
been invited i.e. INR 26.64 Crores(Audited balance sheet duly 
signed by CA should be enclosed). 
(b) satisfactory completed at least one similar work equal in value 
of 50% (Fifty per cent)of the portable amount i.e. INR 22.20 
Crores of contract as one date of submission of financial offer 
(Audited balance sheet duly signed by CA should be enclosed). 
2.2 Technical Criteria 
Intending tenderer shall be registered contractor with any 
Central/State/Semi Government of India or PSU in Class 
A-Unlimited or registered contractor in single registration 
system ofC.G.P.W.D. in appropriate class 
AND 
Intending tenderer should have completed satisfactorily 
following works during last five years i.e. after 06.10.2010 
in any Government/Semi Government or public Sector 
undertaking as below: 
(a) One similar work costing nor less than INR 35.52 Crore 
each 
OR 
(b) two similar work costing not less than INR 22.20 Crore 
each 
Construction ex12erience m Key activities (May be 
complied by specialist 
Subcontractors Employer shall 
require evidence of subcontracting agreement from the 
Bidder. Specialist Sub contractor is a specialist enterprise 
engaged for highly specialised processes which cannot be 
provided
by the main contractor)

CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
987 
CORPORATION LTD v. M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
Requirement 
Submission 
Requirements 
For the above or other contracts In form, Schedule-
executed during the period stipulated D(v) Constrnction 
in 2. l above a minimum constrnction Experience in key 
experience in the following key activities 
activities 
Earth work 
33400 Cum 
Granular Sub Base 20300 cum 
Grading 
Dry Lean Cement 5100 cum 
Concrete 
Cement 
Concrete 10200 cum 
Pavement (M-30 & 
above grades) 
Wet mix mecadam 
2500 cum 
Dense 
graded 3000 cum 
bituminous 
amacadam and by 
Bituminous 
concrete 
R.C.C. open drain 
7500 RM 
(M-20 grade) 
DJ.pipeline 
4265 RM 
various dia of class 
K-9 
Octagonal 
pole 75 Nos. 
with 
LED 
light 
a. For the purpose value of executed works and financial turnover 
shall be bought to current costing level by enhancing the actual 
value of work at the rate of I 0% per annum (compounded 
annually), calculated from the date of completion to last date of 
A 
B 
·c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
receipt of applications for tenders. 
H
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
b. Ongoing project/part project experience shall not be considered 
for evaluation. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
c. For the benefit of the intending tenderers a check list is enclosed 
at schedule D (Section I) for the documents to be submitted 
alongwith tender. 
d. If tenderer qualifies on the basis of experience of one/more 
components of scope of work, in such circumstance, a tenderer 
shall have to employ sub vendor who has experience in execution 
of that component, for which tenderer does not have experience. 
That sub vendor should have successfully completed work in any 
central/State Govemment/PSU in respect of particular component 
as below: 
(i) One completed work of 80% of the value of that component; 
OR 
(ii) Two completed work of 50% of the value of that component 
in the central/State Government Department/ PSU Certificate. 
(a) All tenderers should submit the valid registration certificate. 
Comercial tax certificate, balance sheet with profit and loss 
statement for at least three years. 
(b) The tenderer shall also submit satisfactory completion 
certificates in support of each quoted experience alongwith work 
order. The satisfactory completion certificate should be signed by 
an officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer concerned in 
case of Government department or the rank of General Manager 
in case of Public Sector as the case may be. 
(c) all the documents to be submitted shall be duly notarized." 
24. It
is apparent from the pre-qualification criteria that for acquiring 
eligibility the intended tenderer has to meet the financial criteria as 
specified in Clause 2.1, technical criteria as per Clause 2.2(A) and the 
construction experience in key activities as provided in Clause 2.2 of 
G doing a contract of requisite nature. Clause 2.2(B) required similar 
construction work should have been completed satisfactorily within five 
years, costing not less than INR 32.52 crores or two similar works of 
INR 22.20 crores each and Clause 2.2(C) provided with respect to the 
construction experience in key activities requirement for the above or 
H
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
989 
CORPORATION LTD v. M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
other contracts executed during the period stipulated in clause 2.1 above, 
A 
a minimum construction experience in the key activities as provided in 
forni Schedule D Section I(v) relating to construction experience. 
25.°Schedule D Section l(v) referred to in the pre-qualification 
criteria is also extracted below: 
"D(v): Construction Experience in key Activities. 
Fill up one ( 1) form per contract. 
Contract No ..... of .... 
Nameofwork 
. 
AwardDate 
Award Date 
Completion date 
Role in contract 
Contractor 
I 
Sub contractor 
' 
Total contract amount 
Employer's name 
Address 
Telephone/fax no. 
E-mail 
Description of the 
work executed 
I I 
B. 
c 
D 
E 
Note: Attach copies of the work order and satisfied completion 
certificates in support of each quoted experience. The completion 
certificate should be signed by the officer not below the rank of F 
concerned Executive Engineer in case of Government Department 
or in the rank of General manager in case of Public Sector/private 
sector as the cases may be. 
· Signature of tenderer 
Date 
" 
-------
26. Check list was given in Schedule D Section l(v) for the 
documents to be submitted along with tender. The same is extracted 
hereunder: 
G 
H
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Name of the Agency 
s. 
Document 
Details 
Enclosed as annexure 
No. 
page No. 
from 
B 
to 
Bar cutting ·machine I No. 
upto 40 MM dia 
Cutting pumps 
3 Nos. 
Pan Mixer of not less 2Nos. 
c 
than 0.5 cum 
Plate vibrators of one 2Nos. 
ton capacity 
Minimum 
shuttering L =200 mt Ht 
material to 
provided 0.30m 
by 
tlie 
contractor L= 200mt Ht 
D 
(good 
quality 
steel 1.00 m 
plates 
inc 
steel 
propose etc.) 
Fixed 
from 
or 
slip I No. 
from paver 
Water 
Tankers 
(I 0-
1 No. 
E 
12KL) 
Tipper/trucks 
6Nos. 
. 
Soil compactor 8-10 I No. 
tones) 
Concrete saw 
I No. 
F 
Generator (250 KVA) 
I No. 
Vibratory roller (8-10 I No 
Tones) 
Motor 
Grader I No 
(C leari ng/S preadi ng/G 
SB/100 Cum/ hour) 
G 
Mechanical paver for I No 
CC Road fixed form 
Mechanical paver for I No 
H 
BT Road
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
99 l 
CORPORATION LTD v. M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
Note: the above check list only provides for those documents which 
A 
are mandatory for the tender pre qualification criteria. Tenderers 
are required to append, other documents also with the technical 
tender as required in the detailed NIT or elsewhere in the Part 
One (CSIDC F-1)" 
(Emphasis supplied by us) 
B 
27. It is pertinent to mention here that in said list of mandatory 
plant etc. necessary for pre-qualification criteria, the Hot Mix Plant is 
not mentioned. Thus, it was not a pre-requisite to qualify for opening 
financial bid. 
28. Apart from that, when we peruse the list ofrriinimum plant, 
equipments and shuttering provided in clause 51 of the contract document, 
18 items have been mentioned in which again the Hot Mix Plant is not 
mentioned in the list of"Minimum plant equipment and Shuttering". The 
list contained in Clause 51 of tender documents is extracted hereunder: 
"Sr. 
Particulars 
Quantity 
No. 
(As required) 
1. 
Computerised and Fully Automatic 
1 No. 
Concrete batching plant of minimum Minimum 
30 Cum/ hr capacity. 
Cement Silos for 2 (two) days 
capacity with direct feeding and 
batching facilitv. 
Hoopers 
for 
fine 
and 
course 
a21rregate. 
Approved Plasticizer dozing facility . 
. 
Software programme compatible to 
make corrections to batching/ mix 
design. 
Concrete Pump of required capacity. 
I No. 
Transit Mixer of 6 Cum capacity. 
4Nos. 
MS
concrete Piping system for 
I Sets per Pump set 
pumping 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H

992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
2. 
JCB 
2Nos. 
~ 
Vibrators 
". 
a 
Electric with low noise 
3 Nos. 
B 
B 
Petrol (Stand by) 
2 Nos. 
c 
Needle Vibrator - 40 
2Nos. 
d 
Needle Vibrator- 65 
2Nos. 
c 
4 
Bar Bending Machine up to 40 mm dia. 
I No. 
5 
Bar cutting Machine up to 40 mm dia. 
I No. 
6 
Curing Pumps 
3 Nos. 
D 
7 
Pan mixer of not less than 0.5 Cum 
2Nos. 
8 
Plane Vibrators of I ton capacity 
2Nos. 
9-
Minimum shuttering material to be 
L=200 mtHt 0.30 m 
provided by the contractor (Good quality 
E 
steel plate's inc steel propos etc.) 
L=200 mtHt 1.00 m 
10 
Fixed from or slip from paver 
I No. 
. 
11 
Water Tankers (I0-12 KL) 
I No. 
12 
Tipper/ Trucks 
6Nos. 
F 
13 
Soil Compactor (8-10 Tones) 
I No. 
14 
Concrete Saw 
I No. 
15 
Generator (250 KVA) 
I No. 
G 
16 
Vibratory roller (8-IOTones) 
I No. 
17 
Motor Grader (Clearing/ Spreading/ 
I No. 
GSB/ (100 Cum/hour) 
18 
Mechanical paver for concrete road & 
I No. 
H 
Mechanical paver for B.T. road
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
CORPORATION LTD v. M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
3m 3l'"~R!la ~ 
'lis ~ 
m il>" fa1fllr<1 q;r ~ I ~ ~ 
1R 
~ 
;;nm ~ '(1)- ~ 
i\'{ r<ll~ifi RJ1'tl" ~ 
ti'{ ~ 
~ 
~ 
Pfi'll<ltriilll .. 
q;r ;;ft- ~ ~ 
;l;- ft:rv ~ 
fit;m-
71'<11" 8'". 
~ 
3m mftri't 'ifiT ~ 
~ 
~ ~ 
8'" vcf ~ 
fc\>{l<llrillll 
~ 
f.l"'l1faa flt;m-
71'<11" 8'" ~ ~ 
'ifiT ~ 
'lis ~ 
'ifiT 
f<llfll.-q 'ifiT 'tlC"<INri 
Cfil~ql(ijij ~ 
~ 
~ 
fit;m-
71'<11" 8'" I 
~ 
q;r il>" 3IJITQ * ~ 
lfll" ~ 
m.ra ~ ~ 
~ ~ 
;;mMI" I 
993 
A 
8 
Note: The details referred to herein above are only for the purpose of C 
quantitive assessment. The specification & qualitative aspect of the 
shuttering material shall be in accordance with the BOQ & Technical 
specification. The details are to be provided within 30 days after award 
of contract." 
29. In case, any of the aforesaid minimum equipment is not available 
D 
and certificate is not appended to the bid, the financial bid was not to be 
opened. 
· 
30. The Hot Mix Plant finds place in different Section V of 
Schedule D. A bare reading of Schedule D Section V makes it clear 
that though it was part of tender form and was in the I ist of approved 
•E 
tools and machinery to be used for road work, it was not necessary for 
the purpose of technical evaluation at the stage of pre-qualification for 
opening of financial bid. 
31. Considering the aforesaid various clauses, we are of the 
considered opinion that both the bidders L-1 and L-2
i.e. Mis. Raipur 
Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were 
technically qualified for opening of their financial bids. The opinion 
expressed by the High Court that L-2 was made to be qualified in spite 
of the fact that it was not having Hot Mix Plant, thus, cannot be accepted 
as available ground to disqualify L-2 tenderer. The relevant clauses of 
the tender document were not placed for consideration before the High 
Court as mentioned by the High Court and at last moment the Hot Mix 
Plant inclusion in, Schedule D Section V was indicated to it by the 
disqualified contractor. In our opinion, Hot Mix Plant was not a mandatory 
requirement so as to open the financial bid. Thus, the financial bids of 
the two tenderers who succeeded at the pre-qualification stage had been 
F 
G 
H
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
rightly opened and considered. In our opinion, Mis. Raipur Construction 
was not favoured by qualifying the disqualified tenderer - Mis. Arcons 
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to give the contract to it in surreptitious method 
and manner as observed by the High Court. Mis. Arcons Infrastructure 
was, in fact, rightly qualified. 
B 
c 
32. This Court in Tejas Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. 
Ltd. vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa and Anr. (2012) 6 SCC 464 has 
laid down that when the work is 60 per cent complete, Court should be 
slow to interfere as retendering would delay the project. In the absence 
ofmalafide or arbitrariness which is not made out in the instant case as 
50 per cent of the work had been completed when the order was passed 
by the High Court, hence, no interference was warranted in the present 
case. 
33. Now, we advert to the question of manipulation in the technical 
evaluation sheet which has been placed on record by the CSIDC in the 
form of document R-413 and 513 and by Mis. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. 
D 
as Annexure P-4 in the High Court. 
E 
F 
34. The Cyber Crime Cell has observed that some modification 
was made on 4'h July, 2016, in the technical evaluation bid document P-
. 4, a copy of which was filed by the respondent i.e. Mis. Amar 
Infrastructure Limited in the month of April. It was also not reported 
what change was made in P-4. There was no such manipulation reported 
in the document of technical
evaluation filed by the CSIDC in the High 
Court. We have seen the stand of CSIDC in its reply to the Writ 
Application preferred by Mis B.B. Verma which was dismissed by the 
High Court after looking into same technical evaluation report. The 
similar stand had been taken by the CSIDC and the very same document 
of technical evaluation had been placed on record in the aforesaid case 
as is apparent from the pleadings to which our attention has been drawn 
by the learned Attorney General. The document relied upon by the 
CSIDC had been placed on record of said case within a week of 
finalisation of the financial bid. Immediate filing of the same and taking 
G 
the stand to the similar effect as has been taken in this matter also vouch 
for the correctness of document which has been filed by the CSIDC 
and there is no manipulation in it. As per report of the cyber crime cell 
also there is no manipulation in the document which has been relied 
upon by the CSIDC. The question of manipulation as to Hot Mix Plant is 
H
CHHATTISGARH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
995 
CORPORATION LTD v. M/S AMAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 
of no. consequence as it was not a mandatory criteria for opening of A 
financial bid. The ownership or otherwise of the hot mix plant was not at 
all necessary and the plant was not required as mandatory one for the 
purpose of pre-qualification stage for opening of financial bid. It was 
only in the list of approved plant and equipments to be used under the 
certification of the Engineer-in-charge. It appears that the document P-
B 
4 which had been filed by M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. contained the 
evaluation sheet but it was not as per requirement of aforesaid various 
clauses necessary for pre-qualification stage and non-submission of the 
information as contended by M/s. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. could not 
have disqualified M/s. Arcons Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 
Thus, what was the necessary requirement as per criteria for opening of C 
the financial evaluation had been rightly placed before the Technical 
Evaluation Committee on 3.3.2016. We have perused the original Minutes 
and the technical evaluation document filed by CSIDC which were placed 
before Technical Evaluation Committee, and was signed by the Executive 
Engineer and had been considered by the Technical Evaluation 
Committee. The minutes of the Technical Evaluation Committee had 
D 
also been signed by the aforesaid three officers. Apart from that in the 
minutes of Technical Evaluation
Committee meeting dated 3 .3.2016, 
details of qualifications have been mentioned and that accords with the 
document of evaluation sheet which has been relied upon by the CSIDC. 
35. In our opinion, as the hot mix plant was not a mandatory 
requirement so as to open the financial bid, we decline to go into the 
submission raised on behalf of the appellants that M/s. Amar 
Infrastructure Limited has not disclosed how and when and from whom 
and by which process it obtained the document P-4 which is not signed 
E 
F 
by anybody as the fact remains that the document which is filed by the 
respondent also existed in the computer of the CSIDC. However, it 
looms in insignificance owing to the conclusions to which we have reached 
with respect to the Hot Mix Plant. May be that this document P-4 was 
also prepared by somebody in the CSIDC but it was not initialed or 
signed by anybody. It depicted the position of entire tender of L-2 but 
what was mandatory requirement for pre-qualification stage and technical 
G 
evaluation was correctly placed before the Technical Evaluation 
Committee in the form of document R-4/3 and R-5/3. In view of the 
aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the report of the Cyb1~r Crime Cell 
is of no consequence with respect to pre-qualification criteria and opening 
H
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A of financial bids, since it is not disputed that successful tenderer L-1 
fulfilled all conditions and had Hot Mix Plant also. 
36. There was no manipulation in the mandatory requirements 
and may be that P-4 was prepared but that was of no consequence as 
deficiency of Hot Mix Plant, even if placed before Committee, would 
B 
not have tilted the balance in favour of the respondent Mis. Amar 
Infrastructure Limited. The Committee on that basis could not have 
disqualified the L-2 tenderer. 
37. Coming to the submission raised by the learned counsel for 
the respondent that Mis. Anil Buildcon (I) Pvt. Ltd. was disqualified for 
c not possessing concrete paver as such L-2 tenderer Mis. Arcons 
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. also ought to have been disqualified for deficiency 
of Hot Mix Plant, we are unable to accept the submission as concrete 
paver was mentioned in the list of mandatory plant and equipment for 
pre-qualification stage so as to open financial bid. Thus, this submission 
is found to be baseless. Mis Anil Buildcon (I) Pvt. Ltd. was rightly 
D 
disqualified. 
E 
F 
38. We also find that Mis. Amar Infrastructure Ltd. itself was 
disqualified and it had not questioned the qualification of the successful 
bidder but that of L-2 bidder - Mis. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 
ground that it was not qualified and its financial bid had been illegally 
opened. It was purely a fight between the rival tenderers involving no
element of public interest. It was the respondent who was trying to 
cater to its business interest to ensure retendering by seeking 
disqualification of L-2 tenderer Mis. Arcons Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to 
whom contract had not been given. The Court has to be loath in such 
matter to make interference. 
39. Resultantly, we find that there was no merit in the writ petition 
filed by the respondent in the High Court. Thus, we have no hesitation 
in setting aside the impugned judgment, order and directions passed by 
.the High Court. The appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their own 
G 
costs as incurred. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeals allowed.