Absence of JV Agreement Not a Ground for Disqualification Unless Explicitly Required in NIT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maha Mineral Mining & Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1942), dated on September 9, 2025, held that a bidder cannot be disqualified for non-submission of a joint venture agreement when the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) does not expressly mandate it, and authorities must apply tender conditions strictly to their stated terms without adding implied requirements.

The dispute arose from an NIT issued by Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited (MPPGCL) for coal beneficiation and logistics for the Shree Singaji Thermal Power Project. The appellant, Maha Mineral Mining & Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd., submitted its bid relying on past experience as a 45% partner in a joint venture named Hind Maha Mineral LLP. Along with its bid, it furnished a work execution certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Mining Corporation, certifying that it had undertaken substantial similar work in its capacity as a consortium partner. However, the Tender Evaluation Committee rejected its bid on the ground that the joint venture agreement itself had not been filed. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld this rejection and went further to hold that even if the agreement had been furnished, the appellant would have been disqualified on the ground that its washeries were contractually committed to MSMC and therefore not available to meet the spare washing capacity requirements under Clause 5(B) of the NIT.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the disqualification under Clause 5(D) unsustainable, noting that the NIT required proof of past experience through documents such as work execution certificates but did not expressly mandate submission of the JV agreement; since the appellant’s certificate clearly established its 45% share and successful execution of the requisite work, the authority could not imply an additional requirement, especially when Clause 8.8 empowered it to seek clarifications, and allegations of suppression were untenable as all versions of the JV agreement consistently confirmed the same proportionate share.

Further, on Clause 5(B), the Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly introduced a new ground of disqualification based on spare washing capacity, which had not been raised by the Tender Committee, thereby depriving the appellant of an opportunity to respond. It further noted that whether the Gondegaon washery had the requisite spare capacity and whether it was contractually tied to MSMC were contentious factual issues. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, with a direction to decide it within two months.

This judgment reaffirmed that in public procurement, tender conditions must be applied strictly to their express terms, and neither authorities nor courts can disqualify bidders on implied or unstated grounds.