/3493/2026 of GDS ELECTRICALS WORKS, THR. ITS PROPRIETOR, JAGAN DOMAJI SUMATKAR Vs MAHA. STATE ELECTRICITY DEVPT. CORP. LTD., THR. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MUMBAI AND ORS. on 13 October 2026

1. The petitioner participated in the e-tender, i.e. Tender No.EE/HGT/NSC/INFRA/2025-26/T-10, floated by the respondents, for Infrastructure Development for release of new service connections in Hinganghat Division. In the said process, the petitioner was found not qualified for the reason that as per the tender conditions, the experience criteria was not fulfilled by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner participated as a Joint Venture in the said process and as per the petitioner, the eligibility criteria as regards the experience was that the bidder should have an experience during last five years of execution of full turnkey or partial turnkey contracts of minimum 30 km. HT/LT overhead line or minimum 10 Km. HT/LT underground cable and for Distribution transformers, the bidder should have an experience of execution of full turnkey or partial turnkey contracts of minimum 20 Nos. of Distribution during last three years.

3. In compliance with the said criteria, the certificates, which are relied upon, are admittedly relating to maintenance work and according to the respondents, considering these certificates, the maintenance works, viz. T-11, T-12 and T-13, have been awarded to the petitioner. However, it is the case of the respondents that the work of T-10 is in respect of erection of new infrastructure and for that, an experience required must be related 2026:BHC-NAG:13903-DB

2 WP-3493-2026.odt to the said work and to that effect, a specific stand is taken in the affidavit of the respondents.

4. Admittedly, the experience certificates relied upon by the petitioner are relating to the maintenance work. Whereas, the work in question is in relation to T-10, i.e. erection of new infrastructure. Thus, there is no certificate placed on record by the petitioner to show that the petitioner- Company has an experience in the work of T-10 and, therefore, we do not find any illegality committed by the respondents in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner holding the petitioner as not qualified.

5. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the laying of line under the maintenance work and the work under the tender in question, i.e. the erection of new infrastructure, is the same.

6. It is a settled law that the employer is the best person to interpret the clauses of the tender and once the respondent-Executive Engineer in clear terms has observed that the petitioner is not qualified, in writ jurisdiction considering the limited scope in such commercial matters, i.e. the tender matters, we cannot say that the work of laying of High Tension or Low Tension Line during the work of maintenance is the similar work if the tender is for new infrastructure work.

7. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is rejected.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, as the same is meritless. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) LANJEWAR