In a petition filed before the Supreme Court against a judgment and order dated 23-03-2026 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby it was declared that respondent 1 had qualified for a technical bid in a tender issued for coal beneficiation and logistics, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi granted liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court, asking the High Court to pass appropriate orders.
The Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited issued a tender for coal beneficiation and logistics. The petitioner and respondent 1 participated in the tender process, during which respondent 1’s technical bid was rejected by the Tender Evaluation Committee. Aggrieved, respondent 1 approached the High Court, but its writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, this Court was approached, and by an order dated 09-09-2025, the appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court accepted respondent 1’s claim and declared that it had qualified the technical bid. While doing so, the High Court relied on a letter dated 14-06-2024 written by M/s Hind Maha Mineral LLP to Maharashtra State Mining Corporation (MSMC) to provide an experience certificate for the work of lifting and beneficiation of RoM Coal undertaken by M/s Maharashtra Mineral Mining and Beneficiation Private Limited. The contents of the letter were neither disputed by the petitioner nor by the Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited.
The petitioner claimed that it had filed an affidavit a day before the High Court had reserved its judgment, wherein it had averred that a paragraph mentioned in the said letter containing crucial assertions regarding shifting MSMC’s work was not a part of the letter that was available on the record of the MSMC and had questioned the authenticity of the letter.
The Court was unsure whether the affidavit was a part of the judicial record, and after noting the contents of the affidavit as well as in light of a factual issue regarding the filing of the affidavit and taking the same on record, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court. The High Court was requested to examine this aspect and pass appropriate orders.
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv., M/s Chambers of Kartik Seth, AOR, Mr. Kartik Seth, Ms. Shilpa Saini, Mr. Raghav Sharma, Mr. Lakshmi Kant Srivastava, Mr. Nikhil Nasre, Mr. Kunwar Vikramaditya Shah, Mr. K. M. Abish, Mr. Ragib, Ms. Shaesta Irshad
For Respondents – Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., Mr. Devendra V. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Mr. Chaitanya Dhruv, Mr. Santosh Ghate
