1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 113 of 2026 M/s Sunil Kumar Agrawal Through Its Proprietor, Mr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal,s/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, Having Its Office At, Near Girls College, Raigarh C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Having Its Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. 2 - The General Manager, Contract Management Cell, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Having Its Office At, Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. 3 - M/s Sical Logistics Limited, (A Company Incorporated Under The Provision Of Companies Act), Through Its Board Of Directors, Having Its Registered Office At, 73, Armenian Street, Chennai- 600001. 4 - Shri Vinayaka Rao Turaga, Independent External Monitor, Having Office At, Turaga House, Door No. 5-100/4 Anne Baburao Colony, Penamaluru Vijayawada- 521139, Andhra Pradesh 5 - Smt. Archana Pandey Tiwari, Independent External Monitor, Having Office At, 6-A, Block-2, Qtr No. C-7, New Moti Bagh, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi- 110021. 6 - The Union Of India Through Is Secretary, Ministry Of Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises, 7th Floor, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110108 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 6/Union of India : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government counsel VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.15 10:52:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 13/01/2026 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the propriety, legality and validity of classification of the respondent No.3 as a Small Enterprise in terms of Clause 7.1(q)(vi) of the tender document. The petitioner further challenged the inaction on the part of the respondents No. 1 & 2, whereby the said authorities have failed to acknowledge the objections raised by the petitioner and failed to verify the documents of the respondent No.3 with respect to its classification as a Small Enterprise. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the Respondent No. 2 to verify the classification of the Respondent No. 3 as a Small Enterprise in terms of Clause 7.1(q)(vi) of the tender document before issuance of Work order/LOA in favor of Respondent No.3, in the interest of justice; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the Respondent No. 3 is not a Small Enterprise in terms of Clause 7.1(q)(vi) of the tender document as such are not entitled for the benefit as provided under clause 7.1 (q)(i), in the interest of justice; 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and 3 circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” 3. The Petitioner, a Medium Enterprise and the L-1 bidder in a non- splitable Rs. 4,000 Crore tender issued by Respondent No. 1 on 16.06.2025, has filed this Writ Petition to challenge the eligibility of Respondent No. 3, who, despite being the L-3 bidder, is being considered for the full contract under MSE benefit clauses (L-1 + 15% price band). The Petitioner contends that Respondent No. 3 is fraudulently classified as a Small Enterprise, as its audited financial statements reveal an investment in plant and machinery of Rs. 27.81 Crores, exceeding the Rs. 25 Crore limit prescribed under Clause 7.1(q)(vi) and the MSMED Act. Furthermore, the Petitioner states that the tender's own eligibility criteria, which requires a single-year turnover/experience of Rs. 203.18 Crores, inherently disqualifies any bidder from maintaining a Small Enterprise status (which is capped at Rs. 100 Crores turnover). Despite multiple representations sent between December 2025 and January 2026 highlighting that Respondent No. 3 only obtained MSE registration on 25.07.2025 (after the NIT date) and that its prior experience was gained as a large contractor, the Respondents have failed to conduct the mandatory verification, leading to a bonafide apprehension that the contract will be illegally awarded to Respondent No. 3. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the Petitioner, a registered Medium Enterprise, emerged as the L- 1 bidder in a non-splitable Rs. 4,000 Crore tender (NIT dated 16.06.2025) for coal transportation services, yet the Respondents are 4 erroneously extending MSE benefits to Respondent No. 3, the L-3 bidder, who is seeking to match the L-1 price under the purchase preference policy. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No. 3 is ineligible for "Small Enterprise" classification as its audited financial statements reveal an investment in plant and machinery of Rs. 27.81 Crores, which exceeds the Rs. 25 Crore threshold prescribed under Clause 7.1(q)(vi) of the tender document. It is further submitted that the tender’s mandatory eligibility criteria requiring work experience of Rs. 203.18 Crores is inherently inconsistent with the Rs. 100 Crore turnover cap applicable to Small Enterprises, and that Respondent No. 3 only obtained its MSE registration on 25.07.2025, subsequent to the issuance of the NIT. Learned counsel emphasizes that despite several representations and reminders sent to the Respondents and Independent External Monitors (IEMs) between December 2025 and January 2026 highlighting these discrepancies and the fact that Respondent No. 3’s experience was gained as a large contractor, the Respondents have failed to carry out the mandatory verification, thereby necessitating the present Writ Petition to ensure fairness and transparency in the tender process. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 & 3 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submits that the Petitioner’s challenge to the tender process is premature and based on a misplaced interpretation of the MSMED Act and the tender conditions. Counsel for the Respondents submits that Respondent No. 3 is a validly registered "Small Enterprise" holding a subsisting Udyam Registration as of the 5 date of bid submission, which serves as conclusive documentary evidence of its status under the prevailing government guidelines. It is further contended that the Petitioner, being the L-1 bidder, has no vested right to the award of the contract as the tender specifically incorporates the Public Procurement Policy for MSEs (2012), which mandates the extension of purchase preference to eligible MSEs within the L1+15% price band—a category Respondent No. 3 squarely falls into. Regarding the financial thresholds, he submits that classification under the MSMED Act is based on composite criteria of investment and turnover as reflected in the Udyam portal, which is integrated with Income Tax and GST databases; therefore, the Petitioner’s reliance on selective "audited statements" to contradict an official government registration is legally untenable in a writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, he clarifies that there is no bar on an enterprise gaining experience as a large contractor and subsequently qualifying for MSE status through restructuring or depreciation of assets, provided it holds a valid registration at the time of bidding. As the tender work is non-splitable, the Respondents are duty-bound to follow Clause 7.1(q) and offer the work to the eligible MSE matching the L-1 price. He would submit that the Respondents have acted with transparency, and since no Letter of Acceptance (LoA) has been issued yet, the present petition is based on mere apprehension and deserves to be dismissed with costs. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 would further submit that, the representation of the petitioner has been examined by the Independent External Monitor and after hearing the 6 petitioner and the respondent No.3, the decision has been taken (a copy of which has been produced on 03.01.2026). He further states that, the petitioner has also been supplied a copy of the same yesterday. 7. At the outset, Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate would submit that, he was not aware about the subsequent development, which has taken place in the matter and states that he may be given liberty to challenge the decision dated 03.01.2026, in case the letter of intent (LoI), dated 12.01.2026 is issued in favour of the respondent No.3, so also if the petitioner is so aggrieved. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent development, if he so aggrieved. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved