W.P.(C)/3781/2026 of M/S AARTHI OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 1 of 19
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 25.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3781/2026 & CM APPL. 18537/2026
M/S AARTHI OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION
SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Ms. Mishika
Bajpai and Mr. Mayank Chaturvedi,
Advocates.
versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Abhimanyu Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta,
Mr. R. V. Prabhat, Mr. Shubham
Sharma, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma,
Ms. Preety Makkar, and Mr. Naman,
Advocates for R1 & R2.
Mr Ankur Mittal, CGSC along with
Ms Aditi Singh, GP and Ms Rabaica
Jaiswal, Advocate for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the followi ng
prayers:-
“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature thereof,
quashing the impugned technical disqualification orders dated
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 2 of 19
20.02.2026 and 19.03.2026 in respect of GeM Bid
No.GEM/2025/B/6841328 dated 04.11.2025 for Schedules 1 and
6;
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondent
ONGC to reevaluate the Petitioner's bid by applying the 15%
turnover relaxation under Clause FF of the Commercial Terms
& Conditions to the financial parameters of the Supporting
Company DGEIPL;
(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to allow
the Petitioner to participate in the Reverse Auction and file its
financial bid pending disposal of this Petition;
(iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent not to
fmalise or award the contract in respect of the said Schedules
pending the disposal of this Petition;
(v) Pass an order of status quo directing the Respondent not to
take any further steps towards finalisation, execution, or
operationalisation of any contract awarded pursuant to GeM Bid
No.GEM/2025/B/6841328 dated 04.11.2025 in respect of
Schedule I and Schedule 6, pending the disposal of the present
Writ Petition
(vi) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature thereof,
calling for the complete records pertaining to the proceedings
before the Independent External Monitors (IEMs), including the
hearing held on 17.03.2026, all file notings, deliberations,
correspondence, and the full, unredacted opinion rendered by
the IEMs in relation to the Petitioner's representation, and after
examining the same, be pleased to quash and set aside any
findings adverse to the Petitioner therein.
(vii) Pass any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
2. The case of the petitioner as contended by Dr. Shashwat Bajpai,
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/ ‘M/s. AOGESPL ’ is a
duly incorporated company registered as a ‘Micro Enterprise’ (ME) and also
recognised as a Startup by the Department for Promotion of Industry and
Internal Trade under the Startup India Initiative which is valid unti l
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 3 of 19
27.12.2033. The petitioner's supporting company, M/s. Dharani Geo tech
Engineers India Private Limited (‘DGEIPL’), holds 51% equity in the
petitioner company and is equally registered as a ‘Small Enterprise’ and is
also startup.
3. According to him, respondent no.1/ Oil and Natural Gas Corporatio n
Limited (ONGC) had floated a tender GeM Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6841328
dated 04.11.2025 on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal for
“Hiring of Integrated SJS and SHD Services for onland 2D and 3D Seis mic
Data Acquisition by Deploying Departmental Crews” .
4. The challenge in this petition is primarily to the disqualificat ion order
through GeM portal on 20.02.2026 communicated by the email dated
25.02.2026 and non-speaking email dated 19.03.2026 in respect of Schedule
1 and Schedule 6 of bid dated 14.11.2025.
5. According to Dr. Bajpai, Clause CC of Criteria for Ascertaining
Financial Capability of the Bidders (‘Criteria’ for short) expressly permits a
bidder who cannot meet the financial eligibility criteria on its own to r ely
upon the financial strength of its supporting company (Clause CC). He also
submits that, it mandates that all applicable financial parameters of su ch
supporting company shall be considered for evaluation. Accordingl y, the
petitioner proceeded with the bid by relying upon DGEIPL which holds 51 %
equity in the petitioner.
6. He submits that, Clause FF under the criteria separately and
independently grants relaxation of 15% in the turnover criteria in all M icro
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 4 of 19
and Small Enterprises (MSE) and Startup India registered entities, a benefit
to which both the petitioner and DGEIPL are independently entitled bei ng
duly registered MSME and Startups.
7. The grievance of the petitioner, as canvassed by Dr. Bajpai is that the
alleged basis for disqualifying the petitioner from tender process is o n the
ground that 15% turnover relaxation available under Clause FF of the
Criteria of the tender is not applicable to the supporting companies an d it is
only for standalone MSE/Startup bidders. Further, the average turnover of
the supporting company as per Clause CC is the required threshold.
8. According to him, both these assertions are contrary to the plain and
unambiguous language of the tender. He states that the applicable statutory
procurement framework and respondent no.1’s prior conduct in the very
same tender, granting the petitioner exemption from earnest money deposit
on the basis of the petitioner’s MSE/Statups status, thereby accepting an d
acknowledging the status for the purpose of present tender.
9. According to Dr. Bajpai, the said conduct of the respondent no.1 is
attempting to infuse an extraneous and undisclosed condition int o the tender
document, i.e., the 15% turnover relaxation shall not apply to su pporting
company of the bidders, which condition finds no basis in the text o f the
tender, the Public Procurement Policy for MSEs Order dated 2012; the
MSME Circular dated 10.03.2016, or the Department of Expenditure Office
Memorandum dated 25.07.2016.
10. His submissions in respect of the challenge can be summed up as
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 5 of 19
under:-
a) The denial of benefit of Clause FF of the Criteria to the
supporting company is not part of the tender and has been
arbitrarily introduced;
b) The respondent no.1 has acted consistently in granting MSE /
Startup benefits for earnest money deposit exemption to the
petitioner, but denying turnover relaxation under the same status i s
arbitrary;
c) The action of the respondent no.1 violates binding statutory
procurement policy, which does not exclude supporting company
from such benefit; and
d) The action of the respondent no.1 is contrary to the public
interest.
11. To buttress his contentions, Dr.Bajpai, relied upon the decisio ns of the
Supreme Court in the case of Maha Mineral Mining and Benefication Pvt
Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited &
Another, 2025 INSC 1085 as well as in the case of Kimberley Club Private
Limited v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Others, 2025 INSC 1276 .
12. On the other hand, Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor
General, appearing for the respondents submit that the present petitio n is a
gross abuse of process of law in as much as the petitioner has not disclos ed
to this Court that under the provision of the tender, the petition er has availed
the remedy of review / appeal before the Independent External Monitor
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 6 of 19
(IEM)/respondent no.2 and the representation made by the petitioner has
been considered by the IEM and upon consideration of the representation
and also hearing the petitioner, IEM has passed a detailed order dated
18.03.2026, which has not been placed before this Court for the reasons
best known to the petitioner, hence the petition need to be dismisse d on this
ground alone.
13. That part, it is his submission that the challenge which has been made
in this petition is totally misconceived, in as much as, the responde nt
Corporation has rightly rejected the bid of the petitioner as not eligi ble.
14. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the tender document t o
contend that the reference to the provisions made by Dr. Bajpai are
admittedly under the heading of Criteria for Ascertaining the Financial
Capability of the Bidders . The stipulations thereunder are reference to the
bidders. This he says by drawing our attention to Clauses AA, CC, DD, EE
and FF. For the purpose of this case, he heavily relies upon the Clause CC
(4), which we reproduce as under:-
“CC) A bidder (other than Incorporated Joint Venture) which is
not able to meet the financial criteria by itself, can also submit
its bid on the basis of financial capability of a Supporting
Company provided each of the following conditions are fulfilled:
1 to 3. xxx xxx xxx
4. In such cases, all applicable financial parameters viz.
Turnover, Net-worth, Working Capital of the supporting
company only will be considered for evaluation and the
financial capability of the bidding entity will not be
considered for evaluation. ......”
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 7 of 19
15. He submits that the tender stipulation clearly states that all applicable
financial parameters, viz., turnover, net worth, working capital of the
supporting company only will be considered for evaluation, and finan cial
capability of the bidding entity will not considered for evaluation .
16. It means the clause on which much reliance has been placed by Dr.
Bajpai shall not enure to the benefit of the supporting company.
17. He has also has drawn our attention to Clause FF, to state that there is
nothing in the said clause which stipulates that 15% relaxation in turnover
would enure to benefit of the supporting company, which clause we
reproduce as under:-
“FF) Relaxation to Startups (Micro and Small Enterprises or
otherwise) & Micro and Small Enterprises 15% relaxation in
turnover Criteria shall be available to Startups (Micro and
Small Enterprises or otherwise)/ Micro and Small Enterprises
subject to meeting the prescribed quality and technical
specification of the tendered items/services.”
18. He states that, if the clauses are read in the context of Clause 5, w hich
is primarily a clause relatable to the Criteria for Ascertaining the Financ ial
Capability of the Bidders, it will be clear that Clause FF shall only be
applicable to the bidder/petitioner.
19. He states that the aforesaid aspect has been made clear by the IEM in
its order dated 18.03.2026, wherein, the IEM has agreed with the evaluat ion
carried out by the ONGC and had not interfered with the tendering process.
20. He states that the ONGC has made it clear that the tender conditions
do not permit simultaneous availing of both the benefits, i.e. availin g 15%
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 8 of 19
turnover relaxation on account of its status as Startup/MSE and the stren gth
of the supporting company to meet the requirement of financial parameters.
In other words, he stated when the petitioner has relied upon the stren gth of
a supporting company to meet required financial parameters, then 15%
turnover relaxation on account of its status as of Startup/MSE shall not be
applicable to the supporting company. His submission is that, ON GC being
the author of the tender and the aforesaid being the view of the ONGC,
surely this Court will not substitute the view of the ONGC by its o wn view
and allow the challenge made by the petitioner and thereby granting t he
relief. It is his submission that the same is clearly impermissible an d the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, the sho rt
issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner shall b e entitled
to avail the benefit of 15% turnover relaxation on account of its stat us of
Startup/MSE and also on the strength of supporting company to meet the
required financial parameters.
22. One of the submissions of Dr. Bajpai is that there is nothing in the
tender which precludes the bidder from taking the benefit of both the
conditions. He submits that the Supreme Court in Kimberley Club Private
Limited (supra), has held as under:-
“13. It is trite that the terms of an NIT must be clear and
unambiguous. If 1 st respondent-Mandi Parishad intended that
‘haisiyat praman patra’ must be issued by District Magistrate
alone, it ought to have specified so in the NIT conditions.
14. We are also unimpressed by 1 st respondent-Mandi
Parishad’s submission that such condition was implied and
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 9 of 19
followed by other bidders, as nothing is placed on record to
show that the government notification was applicable to all
tenders floated by 1 st respondent- Mandi Parishad. It may not be
out of place to bear in mind that the 1 st respondent-Mandi
Parishad is not a government department to which the
notification is per se applicable but is a body constituted under a
statute, namely Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Adhiniyam, 1964.”
23. Though, the submission is appealing on a first blush, but on a d eeper
consideration of the provisions, i.e., Clauses CC (4) and FF of the Crit eria
moreso, when one authority/IEM/respondent no.2 has applied its mind a nd
accepted the view of the ONGC, which is a plausible view, and also, there is
nothing in Clause FF which suggest that the 15% relaxation in tu rnover
criteria is applicable to a supporting company which may be a startup/MSE ,
this Court cannot substitute the view of the ONGC with its view. In fac t, Mr.
Sharma is justified in relying upon Clause CC(4), which indicates that
turnover, net worth, working capital of the supporting company only wil l be
considered for evaluation. The said stipulation is not made subject t o Clause
FF.
24. The ONGC being the author of the tender document, it only can
decide and determine the scope and effect of eligibility conditions st ipulated
in the Tender. Therefore, this Court need to accept the plea as urged by Mr.
Sharma by relying on Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. v. SLL–SML
(Joint Venture Consortium) & Others, Civil Appeal No.8004/2016 decided
on 17.08.2016, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph no.47 held as
under:-
“47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the
acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 10 of 19
not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also
from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty the terms of the NIT cannot be ignored as being
redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the
necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular there
must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative
action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the
employer ought not to be questioned but the decision making
process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The
soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or
mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with
relevant law could have reached” as held in Jagdish Mandal
followed in Michigan Rubber. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and another, (2016) 16 SCC 818 , has held
that the owner or employer of a project, being the author of the te nder
document, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement s
and to interpret its conditions. In paragraph no.15, the Supreme Court h eld
as under :-
“15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project,
having authored the tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its
documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless
there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender
conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project
may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not
acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a
reason for interfering with the interpretation given. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Similarly, in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 11 of 19
another, (2020) 16 SCC 489 , the Supreme Court has held that the authority
floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, and therefore, t he
Court’s interference should be minimal. In paragraph No.20, the Supreme
Court held as under :-
“20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred
to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for
overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in
matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the
courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the
decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not
sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the
court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the
best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's
interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the
contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is
the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If
two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the
author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to
prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the
present case.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and
others, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the Supreme Court has once again summarised
the principles governing the scope of judicial review in tender matters. T he
relevant paragraph no.23, is as under :-
“23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by
the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the
heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the
judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly
for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior
purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 12 of 19
would be legitimate to take into consideration the national
priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the
purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to
play in this process except for striking down such action of the
executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the
Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards
and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in
those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document
and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be
conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the
tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its
statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be
laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the
resources to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and
in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference
by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a
fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.”
28. In so far as the judgment relied upon by Dr.Bajpai is concerned, in
Kimberley Club Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned
with the facts wherein a tender was floated by the 1 st respondent/Mandi
Parishad to let out a banquet hall/terrace lawn for ten years to the highest
bidder. The NIT prescribed a two stage bidding process comprising a
technical bid and a financial bid. The technical bids were to be eval uated
first and only bidders meeting the eligibility criteria would qualify for the
second stage, where the financial bids were to be evaluated and tender
awarded to the highest bidder. One of the conditions was of having a
‘haisiyat praman patra ’ of minimum ₹10 crores with the technical bid. Th e
appellant as well as 5 th respondent (successful bidder) submitted their
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 13 of 19
respective bids. Appellant’s technical bid was disqualified for the reason that
the ‘ haisiyat praman patra ’ was issued by a private architect and not by a
District Magistrate. Claiming it to be the highest bidder and that tech nical
bid had been unlawfully rejected, appellant approached High Court by way
of a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holdi ng that
valuation certificate submitted by appellant having been issued by a p rivate
architect could not be treated as a ‘ haisiyat praman patra ’, i.e., solvency
certificate which is always issued by the office of District Magistrate.
29. The issue which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was
whether the appellant while submitting a valuation certificate is sued by a
professional architect cum private valuer attached to the Income Tax
Department, had complied with Clause 18 of NIT which required it to
submit a ‘ haisiyat praman patra’ of minimum ₹10 crores. In the facts, the
Supreme Court in paragraphs 9-15, held as under:-
“9. Appellant has strenuously argued that nothing in the NIT
necessitated that ‘haisiyat praman patra’ be issued by a District
Magistrate. It contended ‘haisiyat praman patra’ submitted by
the appellant was by an experienced valuer who was empanelled
with the Income Tax Department and there was no justification
to reject such certificate. It was also argued that the valuation
certificate assessed the value of the asset at around Rs.99 crores,
of which appellant was 76.09 % shareholder, whereas as per
clause 18 the bidder was to furnish a ‘haisiyat praman patra’ of
minimum Rs.10 crores only.
10. In rebuttal, the 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad referred to
Uttar Pradesh government notification dated 29.10.20183 laying
down the procedure for issuance of ‘haisiyat praman patra’ by
District Magistrate. It was contended that Clause 18 required
submission of such ‘haisiyat praman patra’ and not valuation
certificate issued by a private valuer. All bidders apart from
appellant had submitted ‘haisiyat praman patra’ issued by
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 14 of 19
District Magistrate. It was also contended that valuation
certificate does not disclose appellant’s net worth as it fails to
indicate whether the asset so valued was free from
encumbrances.
11. In tender matters, the court exercising judicial review does
not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering authority
regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases where such
decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is patently arbitrary
would the Court exercise powers of judicial review and set aside
such a decision.
12. Having scanned the NIT, we are of the considered view that
neither Clause 18 nor any other condition specifies that the
‘haisiyat praman patra’ submitted by a prospective bidder must
be issued only by a District Magistrate in terms of the
government notification.
13. It is trite that the terms of an NIT must be clear and
unambiguous. If 1st respondent-Mandi Parishad intended that
‘haisiyat praman patra’ must be issued by District Magistrate
alone, it ought to have specified so in the NIT conditions.
14. We are also unimpressed by 1st respondent-Mandi
Parishad’s submission that such condition was implied and
followed by other bidders, as nothing is placed on record to
show that the government notification was applicable to all
tenders floated by 1st respondent- Mandi Parishad. It may not be
out of place to bear in mind that the 1st respondent-Mandi
Parishad is not a government department to which the
notification is per se applicable but is a body constituted under a
statute, namely Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Adhiniyam, 1964.
15. Given the situation, it was incumbent on 1st respondent-
Mandi Parishad to indicate in the tender conditions that the
‘haisiyat praman patra’ was to be obtained from a District
Magistrate as per the procedure laid down in such government
notification. Having failed to do so, the 1st respondent-Mandi
Parishad could not have rejected the certificate submitted by
appellant on the ground that it was not issued by a District
Magistrate. That apart, appellant’s certificate has been issued by
an experienced valuer registered with the Income Tax
Department who is otherwise competent to issue such
certificate.”
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 15 of 19
30. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High
Court and remanded the matter to the 1 st respondent to reconsider the
technical bid of the appellant and if it is satisfied that the net worth of t he
asset disclosed in the valuation certificate submitted by the appellant meets
the requirement of Clause 18 of the NIT, it shall accept the technical bid
and after due negotiations between the appellant and the 5 th respondent
(successful bidder), decide whether remainder of the contract awarded to the
appellant or in the event 5 th respondent matches the financial bid or
enhanced offer of the appellant, permit the 5 th respondent to continue the
contract for the remaining period.
31. Suffice to state the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts.
This we say so because, Dr. Bajpai has placed much reliance on Clause FF.
The Clause CC (4), which we have reproduced above, clearly reveals that all
applicable financial parameters like, turnover, net worth, working capita l of
the supporting company only will be considered for evaluation and fina ncial
capability of the bidding entity will not be considered for evaluatio n.
Surely, the same do indicate that, when it comes to supporting company, th e
aforesaid parameters shall only be considered for evaluation and nothing
more.
32. Dr. Bajpai has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Maha Mineral Mining and Benefication Pvt Limited (supra). In
the said case the issue that was decided by the Supreme Court is that,
whether the decision of the High Court to uphold the appellant’s
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 16 of 19
disqualification under Clause 5 (D) for not furnishing Joint Vent ure (JV)
agreements is justified or not?
33. The facts in the said case were, a NIT was issued by 1 st respondent.
The 2nd respondent and another company applied for the tender. Only the 2 nd
respondent remained in the fray. The Tender Evaluation Committee rejected
the tender of the appellant. The case of the appellant was, the NIT did not
expressly require a bidder to produce JV agreements to demonstrate its
proportionate share in the past experience with its previous consort ium/ JV.
The Court noted the fact that the Clause 5(D) merely states that the app ellant
would be entitled to use past experience of the previous consortium / JV.
The clause does not mention the criteria.
34. It is noted by the Supreme Court that the NIT did not specifically call
for any other document as proof of proportionate share of the bidder in
previous JV experience. The Supreme Court held the respondent should
have spelt out clearly in the NIT the said aspect. Having not done so , the
respondent no.1 therein cannot thrust the responsibility on the appell ant to
seek clarification and submit its document. The appellant therein had
submitted the work execution certification, unequivocally set out its
proportionate share in the JV agreement, whose prior experience it had
relied upon.
35. The Supreme Court also noted that, as per Clause 8.1, nothing
prevented the respondent no.1 to seek clarification from the appellant t herein
to satisfy itself with regard to the proportionate share of the appella nt in its
previous JV.
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 17 of 19
36. According to the Supreme Court, the respondent no.1 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 the
production of such an agreement as mandatory. The Supreme Court while
setting aside the order of the High Court, took a view that the High Court
went a step further traversing beyond the reasons given by the committee.
In view of the same, the Supreme Court had remanded back the matter to the
High Court.
37. The judgment as relied upon by Dr Bajpai in Maha Mineral Mining
and Benefication Pvt Limited (supra) has no applicability to the facts, in the
case in hand. The issue raised in this petition is not relatable to th e
submission of a document which was not prescribed, but applicabili ty of a
benefit to a supporting company. We have already held that there is noth ing
to suggest in Clause FF that such a benefit shall enure to a supporti ng
company. We have also held that Clause CC(4) has not been made subject to
Clause FF. Further, IEM/respondent no.2, while deciding the represent ation
of the petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2026, has passed a detai led order,
with which, we agree. Suffice to state, no interference is called for with the
impugned action. The relevant part of the order dated 18.03.2026 i s
reproduced as under:-
“5.0 Having heard AOGESPL and ONGC, our opinion is as
under.
5.1 AOGESPL participated in the tender by relying on the
financial strength of its supporting company, DGEIPL. Both
AOGESPL and DGEIPL are Startups as well as MSEs. As per
the Bid Evaluation Criteria (BEC), a relaxation of 15% in the
turnover requirement is applicable to Startups/MSEs. The offer
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 18 of 19
of AOGESPL was rejected on the ground of non-fulfilment of the
prescribed turnover criteria by supporting company, AOGESPL
contested that 15% turnover relaxation should be admissible to
them as both bidder (AOGESPL) and its supporting company
(DGEIPL) are Startups and MSES. AOGESPL further submitted
that had the 15% turnover relaxation been extended, its offer
would have met the financial criteria.
5.2 ONGC clarified that, as per the Supporting Company clause
stipulated in the tender, in case bidder is participating on the
basis of financial strength of a supporting company, all
applicable financial parameters, namely turnover, net worth,
and working capital, of the supporting company shall be
considered for bid evaluation. The supporting company clause
does not provide any relaxation to Startups/MSE bidders
participating on financial strength of the supporting company.
ONGC asserted that the 15% relaxation in turnover criteria is
applicable only to Startups/MSEs bidders participating on its
own financial strength. Further, ONGC clarified that 15%
relaxation in turnover for Startup /MSE bidder has been allowed
in the tender as per Government guidelines. The objective of
providing relaxation in the turnover criteria is to encourage
participation of Startups/MSE bidders who may otherwise be
unable to meet the prescribed tender requirements. ONGC
further clarified that the provision permitting bidders to meet the
financial eligibility criteria through a supporting company is a
separate facilitative measure incorporated in tenders by ONGC
with the objective of enhancing competition. It was emphasized
that both these provisions are separate and operate
independently. Accordingly, a bidder may either avail the 15%
turnover relaxation on account of its status as a Startup/MSE, or
rely upon the strength of a supporting company to meet required
financial parameters mentioned in the tender, subject to
fulfilment of the certain conditions stipulated in the tender. The
tender conditions do not permit simultaneous availing of both
benefits. In the present case, the bidder sought to combine both
the benefits-i.e., turnover relaxation applicable to Startups/MSEs
and reliance on the financial strength of the supporting
company-in order to qualify in the tender, which is not
admissible under any tender provisions.
5.3 In view of above submissions made by ONGC, we agree with
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3781/2026 Page 19 of 19
the evaluation carried out by ONGC and would not like to
intervene in tender process. 5.4 Further, the opinion rendered
by IEMs is advisory in nature and IEMs shall not be made
respondents in any legal proceedings, in line with the
instructions issued by CVC in this regard.”
38. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The pendi ng
application is also dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 25, 2026
M
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.03.2026
15:41:04
Signature Not Verified