Joint Venture Experience Must Be Counted Absent Express Exclusion: A Commentary on M/s Surguja Bricks Industries Company v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 1456

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in M/s Surguja Bricks Industries Company v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14859 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1456), has delivered an important judgment in the field of public procurement and tender jurisprudence. The Court has clarified two key principles:

Experience acquired by a contractor as a member of a joint venture (JV) can and must be counted towards the contractor’s eligibility in subsequent tenders, at least in proportion to its participation, unless the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) or tender documents expressly and unambiguously exclude such JV experience.
While courts ordinarily defer to a tendering authority’s interpretation of its own tender conditions, such deference cannot extend to interpretations that are irrational, absurd, or arbitrary and thereby violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The case thus lies at the intersection of two lines of authority:

The New Horizons–line of cases recognising that commercial experience can “travel” with entities through joint ventures, mergers, and reorganisations; and
The Afcons–line of cases emphasising judicial restraint in interfering with tender processes, subject to constitutional constraints of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

This commentary analyses the judgment’s factual background, the Court’s reasoning, its reliance on precedent, and its implications for future tender drafting and evaluation.

2. Background and Parties

2.1 The Parties

Appellant: M/s Surguja Bricks Industries Company (“Surguja Bricks”) – a civil contractor, registered with the Chhattisgarh Public Works Department (PWD).
Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh and its Public Works Department authorities, including the Chief Engineer (Central Tender Cell), Office of the Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No. 3).

2.2 The Tender

On 08.01.2025, Respondent No. 3 issued first call NIT No. 246/TC/24-25 for:

Construction of a road from Gram Ramgarh to Gram Kotadal;
Length: 27.20 km, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, Work Code W25598;
Probable Amount of Contract (PAC): ₹ 4521.56 lakhs;
Completion period: 12 months.

The NIT contained a pre-qualification document with eligibility criteria in Clause 1. In substance, to qualify, “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer) in its name must have in the last five years”:

Financial turnover: In any one financial year, turnover of at least 60% of the PAC; and
Work experience (any one of the following):
- (i) At least one similar work equal in value to 50% of PAC; or
- (ii) At least two similar works each costing minimum 40% of PAC; or
- (iii) At least one similar work having received payment of not less than 60% of PAC.

The phrase “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer) in its name” later became the fulcrum of the controversy.

2.3 Surguja Bricks’ Experience Certificates

Surguja Bricks submitted its bid online along with required documents, including two experience certificates:

Joint Venture work (MPSBI-JV):
- JV name: MPSBI-JV.
- Partners: (i) M/s Mohan Poddar – 51%; (ii) M/s Surguja Bricks Industries – 49%.
- Work: Construction of 70 km road in District Surajpur under Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency.
- Contract value: ₹ 4904.09 lakhs.
- Certificate specifically recorded that 49% experience of Surguja Bricks was ₹ 2404 lakhs.
Individual work:
- Work executed solely by Surguja Bricks in its own name.
- Work value: ₹ 1675.86 lakhs.

Given that 50% of the PAC (₹ 4521.56 lakhs) equals approximately ₹ 2261 lakhs, Surguja Bricks relied primarily on its 49% share of the JV project (₹ 2404 lakhs) to demonstrate satisfaction of the 50% experience threshold.

2.4 Technical Evaluation and Disqualification

On 03.03.2025, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) communicated deficiencies:

The main experience certificate related to a joint venture and was not in the name of Surguja Bricks alone.
The other (individual) certificate showed a work value less than the required 50% of PAC.
Hence, the appellant was said not to meet Clause 1(b)(i)–(iii).

Surguja Bricks replied on 05.03.2025, explaining:

The JV certificate expressly quantified its 49% share (₹ 2404 lakhs) – exceeding the 50% threshold of PAC.
Under established law (relying on New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478), a JV partner is entitled to proportionate credit for JV experience.
It was relying on the JV certificate only to the extent of its 49% share.

After further correspondence, on 19.03.2025 the TEC finally disqualified Surguja Bricks, stating that:

One experience certificate was a JV certificate and hence unacceptable.
The other certificate was below the required quantum.

2.5 High Court Proceedings

Surguja Bricks filed W.P.(C) No. 1745 of 2025 before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging:

The disqualification letter dated 19.03.2025; and
Seeking a direction to treat it as eligible and open its financial bid.

The High Court:

Emphasised the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters.
Held that it could not rewrite or re-interpret tender conditions set by the authority.
Found no mala fides, unreasonableness, or public interest detriment in the TEC’s decision.
Dismissed the writ petition on 04.04.2025.

Surguja Bricks approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. On 08.04.2025, the Supreme Court issued notice and directed that financial bids, if not already opened, should not be opened till further orders.

3. Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court crystallised the core controversy as follows:

Interpretation of “prime contractor” in the eligibility clause: What is the meaning of the expression “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer) in its name” in Clause 1 of the pre-qualification document?
Effect on joint venture experience: Does this expression preclude a tenderer from relying on proportionate experience acquired as a member of a joint venture?
Legality of disqualification: Was the decision to reject Surguja Bricks’ bid for not meeting the experience criterion, by ignoring its JV experience, arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14?
Scope of judicial review: In the absence of proved mala fides, can a constitutional court still interfere where the tendering authority’s interpretation of tender conditions is irrational or leads to arbitrary exclusion?

4. Summary of the Judgment

4.1 Holdings

The Supreme Court (Ujjal Bhuyan, J., with Manoj Misra, J., concurring) held:

The term “prime contractor” is not defined in the NIT or pre-qualification documents. In such a situation, the common parlance test must be applied.
In the context of this NIT, “prime contractor” simply means the tenderer – the person/entity submitting the bid. The phrase does not in itself exclude experience obtained as a member of a joint venture.
The NIT and pre-qualification documents contain no express or explicit clause excluding past experience acquired through joint ventures or partnerships. The State cannot read into the tender an unstated disqualification.
Following New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India and Ganpati PV – Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the experience of a joint venture is in substance the experience of its constituents, and a tenderer is entitled to rely on its proportionate share of that experience.
The refusal to consider Surguja Bricks’ proportionate JV experience (49% share in a ₹ 4904.09 lakh project) was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14, and vitiated the decision-making process.
While courts generally defer to the tendering authority’s interpretation of its own tender documents, such deference does not extend to interpretations that are irrational, absurd or arbitrary. Judicial review is available in such cases.

4.2 Final Directions

The Court:

Set aside the decision of Respondent No. 3 dated 19.03.2025 disqualifying Surguja Bricks.
Set aside the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated 04.04.2025.
Directed the respondents to reconsider the appellant’s case by accepting its JV experience certificate (as a member of MPSBI-JV) for eligibility evaluation.
Allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs.

5. Detailed Analysis

5.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

5.1.1 New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478

In New Horizons, the Department of Telecommunications invited tenders for printing and supplying telephone directories. The tender of New Horizons, a joint venture company, was rejected on the ground that it had no experience “in its own name”.

The Supreme Court in that case held:

State entities entering into contracts are bound by Article 14 and must act fairly and reasonably.
While assessing “experience”, one must adopt the perspective of a prudent businessman: what matters is the experience and capacity of the persons behind the entity, not the mere name of the juristic entity.
In the case of a joint venture, its “experience” is necessarily the experience of its constituent companies or persons.
Failure to consider the experience of the joint venture’s constituents was arbitrary and irrational.

In Surguja Bricks, the Court:

Reaffirmed the prudent businessman test from New Horizons (para 21.3).
Adopted the definition of a joint venture as a partnership-like association, with community of interest in profits and losses (para 21.4).
Applied the logic that JV experience is, in substance, experience of its members. If that logic binds the State when a JV is the bidder, there is no principled reason to ignore that experience when a JV constituent bids on its own, absent explicit exclusion.

5.1.2 Ganpati PV – Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 1 SCC 589

In Ganpati, the bidder’s commercial bid was not considered due to an alleged failure to meet eligibility criteria, although the bidder claimed to have requisite experience as a JV partner. Relying on New Horizons, the Supreme Court held the High Court’s contrary view incorrect and directed reconsideration.

In Surguja Bricks, this precedent was invoked to reinforce that:

Past experience as a JV member is a recognised basis for satisfying eligibility criteria.
Courts can intervene when tendering authorities refuse to give due weight to such experience in the absence of clear exclusion.

5.1.3 West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 451

In Patel Engineering, the Supreme Court held:

States and their agencies cannot reject a tender for breach of a condition that is not clearly and explicitly set out in the tender documents.
Vague or subjective norms in tender conditions can lead to unequal and discriminatory treatment, and provide scope for manipulation.

In the present case, the Court relied heavily on this principle (para 24), holding that:

It is the tendering authority’s duty to draft clear and unambiguous eligibility criteria.
There was no explicit provision in the NIT excluding JV-acquired experience.
To read such an exclusion into the phrase “prime contractor in the same name and style” would violate the doctrine in Patel Engineering and open the door to arbitrariness.

5.1.4 Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1

In Reliance Energy, dealing with a BOT project for the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link, the Court stressed:

Tender terms must indicate, with legal certainty, the norms and benchmarks.
Vagueness or subjectivity in tender norms can violate the “level playing field” and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court in Surguja Bricks quoted para 38 of Reliance Energy (para 25), using it to reinforce the proposition that:

Clarity and legal certainty in eligibility clauses are essential to avoid discrimination and arbitrariness.
The phrase “prime contractor in the same name and style” cannot be used as an elastic, subjective tool to exclude JV experience without express basis.

5.1.5 Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. Doshion Veolia Water Solutions (P) Ltd., (2010) 13 SCC 364

In IRCTC v. Doshion Veolia, the Court again emphasised:

The necessity of clear tender conditions and adherence to them.
The danger that non-explicit criteria (e.g., a “viability range” not mentioned in the tender) can render the process opaque and unfair. The Court drew on Dutta Associates (P) Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles (P) Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 53, which had invalidated a tender process for precisely such undisclosed criteria.

In Surguja Bricks (para 26), the Court cited IRCTC and Dutta Associates to reinforce that:

Any “hidden” criterion – such as an unarticulated rule that JV experience will be disregarded – is impermissible.
All disqualification grounds must be found clearly in the tender documents themselves.

5.1.6 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Amr Dev Prabha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 335

These decisions, relied upon by the State, stand for the proposition that:

The tendering authority is generally the best judge of its requirements and of the interpretation of tender documents.
Courts should not interfere lightly in tender evaluations and must be slow to substitute their own view for that of expert bodies, especially in technical or commercial matters.

In Surguja Bricks, the Supreme Court did not dispute this general rule (para 27), but carefully qualified it:

Deference to the tendering authority’s interpretation is not absolute.
Such deference is unavailable where the authority’s interpretation is:
- Vitiated by mala fides;
- Pervasively unreasonable or perverse; or
- Irrational or absurd, leading to arbitrary consequences.
In such situations, it is the duty of constitutional courts to intervene; otherwise judicial review would be rendered otiose.

This clarification meaningfully refines the Afcons–line, restating that Article 14 applies fully to contractual decisions of the State.

5.1.7 Other References

Counsel for Surguja Bricks also referred to:

Maha Mineral Mining & Benefaction Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1942 – cited for the continuing requirement that tender norms must be clear and non-arbitrary. (The present judgment does not substantively discuss this case, but it fits the same doctrinal arc as Patel Engineering and Reliance Energy.)

5.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

5.2.1 Definition of “Prime Contractor” and the Common Parlance Test

The term “prime contractor” was pivotal. The State argued, relying also on Black’s Law Dictionary, that a “prime contractor” is the entity that contracts for and completes an entire project, coordinating all work and sub-contractors; accordingly, a JV partner is not a “prime contractor” in its own right.

The Court reasoned as follows (paras 20–22):

The term “prime contractor” was not defined in the NIT or pre-qualification document.
In such circumstances, the common parlance test applies: how would the term be understood in the ordinary context of the NIT?
In the context of this NIT, “prime contractor” simply means the tenderer itself:
- if there is a single bidder – that entity;
- if more than one contractor bids together – the entity primarily responsible for performance.

Crucially, the Court did not accept that the phrase “in the same name and style (tenderer) in its name” amounted to an implied prohibition on relying on JV-derived experience. Instead:

The clause is properly read as requiring that the bidder (as such) must show that “it” has the requisite experience, but “it” can be credited for work done through structures like JVs where its role and contribution are demonstrable.
This reading aligns with commercial reality – contractors routinely participate in joint ventures to acquire experience, which they later employ to qualify for independent work.

5.2.2 Characterisation and Treatment of Joint Venture Experience

The Court drew heavily from New Horizons (paras 21–21.5):

A joint venture is a legal arrangement akin to a partnership, formed for a particular commercial enterprise, with a community of interest in the subject matter and sharing of profits and losses.
From a “prudent businessman” perspective, when contracting with a JV, what matters is not merely the JV’s name, but the experience, capacity, and resources of the constituent members.
When assessing “experience” of a JV, one is in truth assessing the experience of its members.

Transposing that reasoning to the present facts:

Surguja Bricks had a 49% stake in MPSBI-JV, which executed a road project of ₹ 4904.09 lakhs. The certificate itself quantified Surguja’s “experience share” as around ₹ 2404 lakhs.
Given that 50% of the PAC was about ₹ 2261 lakhs, Surguja’s proportionate JV experience exceeded the threshold.
No clause in the NIT stated that such JV experience would be disregarded, or that only projects executed solely in the bidder’s own name would count.

The Court therefore held (para 28) that there was “no justification at all” for refusing to consider Surguja Bricks’ proportionate JV experience. The decision was:

Arbitrary and unreasonable; and
In breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.

5.2.3 Clarity and Explicitness in Eligibility Criteria

A core plank of the Court’s reasoning is the insistence that tender eligibility conditions be clear, explicit, and unambiguous (paras 23–26, 29).

Key points:

The NIT and pre-qualification document contained no clause stating:
- “Experience as a member of a joint venture will not be considered”; or
- “Only experience in contracts executed solely in the bidder’s own name will be considered.”
Departmental communications (letters dated 05.01.2016 and 10.02.2017) from the Chief Engineer had, in fact, taken the opposite view – proposing that:
- Work done by a sub-contractor with the competent authority’s permission be credited to that sub-contractor; and
- Work done by a contractor as part of a JV be treated as experience of that contractor, to the extent of the share of work executed.
Although the Court accepted that such internal letters cannot “override” explicit tender terms, it noted that there was, in any case, no express exclusion of JV experience to contradict.

Synthesising Patel Engineering, Reliance Energy, and IRCTC v. Doshion Veolia, the Court held:

Eligibility conditions must be drafted with legal certainty; hidden or implicit disqualifications are impermissible.
Vague or subjective interpretations (“we will not consider JV experience, although not stated”) violate the rule of law and the level-playing-field doctrine.
The State cannot reject a tender for breach of conditions that are not clearly stated in the tender documents.

5.2.4 Judicial Review and Limits of Deference to Tendering Authorities

The High Court had essentially held that, absent mala fides or obvious irrationality, it must defer to the tendering authority’s interpretation of eligibility criteria and conditions.

The Supreme Court agreed with the general principle of deference but imposed important limits (para 27):

Constitutional courts should ordinarily defer to the understanding of tendering authorities of their own tender requirements, especially in technical matters.
However, this deference is not a carte blanche. Courts must intervene where:
- The interpretation is driven by mala fides;
- The decision is perverse; or
- The interpretation is so irrational or absurd that it leads to arbitrary exclusion, in breach of Article 14.
To hold otherwise would make judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 “otiose” and strip Article 14 of all effect in contractual matters.

On the facts, the refusal to count clearly quantified JV experience, in the absence of any express exclusion, was held to be irrational and arbitrary. Thus, the High Court’s mechanical deference to the tendering authority was itself legally flawed.

5.2.5 Role of Unified Registration System and Departmental Circulars

The appellant had also relied on:

Unified Registration System Rule 5.2.3, which allowed departing partners of a firm to carry their proportionate experience into new registrations; and
Departmental communications (2016 and 2017) clarifying that JV partners and permitted sub-contractors should receive credit for work actually performed, and be treated as “prime contractors” for that portion.

The State argued that:

Registration requirements are separate from tender eligibility conditions.
Departmental letters are merely advisory and non-binding on tender evaluations.

The Court did not rest its decision solely on these instruments, but used them to:

Demonstrate the administration’s own understanding that JV experience can legitimately be credited to constituent partners, consistent with commercial logic and fairness.
Reinforce the conclusion that there was no textual basis in the NIT for a sudden departure from that approach in this particular tender.

5.3 Application to the Facts

Applying the principles discussed, the Court reached these conclusions:

Qualification of Surguja Bricks by experience:
- Surguja’s 49% share of the JV project (₹ 2404 lakhs) exceeded the 50% PAC threshold (approx. ₹ 2261 lakhs).
- The JV certificate itself quantified the appellant’s share.
- There was no express bar against counting such JV-derived experience.
Illegality of disqualification:
- The TEC’s refusal to consider this JV experience, coupled with its reliance solely on the smaller individual work, was found to be arbitrary and irrational.
- By reading an unwritten prohibition into the phrase “prime contractor in the same name and style”, the TEC effectively introduced a hidden eligibility criterion, contrary to established precedent.
Error of the High Court:
- The High Court failed to scrutinise the rationality of the TEC’s interpretation and confined itself to a very narrow lens of malice/unreasonableness.
- It did not address the key point that there was no explicit bar against JV experience and that the appellant’s experience clearly met the numerical thresholds.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both the TEC’s decision and the High Court’s judgment and directed reconsideration of the appellant’s bid by treating the JV certificate as valid experience evidence.

6. Impact and Implications

6.1 For Drafting of Tender Conditions

The decision sends a strong signal to all public authorities:

Express Exclusion Required: If an authority intends to exclude certain types of experience – e.g., experience obtained as a JV partner, as an associate, or as a sub-contractor – it must say so explicitly and unambiguously in the NIT.
No Hidden Criteria: Authorities cannot:
- Introduce additional conditions during evaluation; or
- Interpret ambiguous language to justify such additional, unstated disqualifications.
Legal Certainty and Level Playing Field: Ambiguous expressions such as “prime contractor” or “in its own name” should be carefully defined to avoid disputes. Otherwise, courts are likely to adopt bidder-friendly, Article 14–compliant interpretations.

6.2 For Contractors and Joint Ventures

For contracting entities, especially in infrastructure sectors where joint ventures are common:

Recognition of Proportionate JV Experience: Contractors can reasonably expect that:
- Their proportionate share in completed JV projects will count towards eligibility in future tenders, unless there is a clear contrary clause.
- Certificates explicitly quantifying their share of work (as in Surguja’s case) will be given due weight.
Encouragement for Capacity Building via JVs: New and mid-sized contractors can participate in large projects through JVs to build a track record, confident that such experience will not be wasted.
Litigation Strategy: Where authorities reject JV-based experience without textual support in the NIT, contractors now have a strong precedent to challenge such actions as arbitrary and contrary to Article 14.

6.3 For Judicial Review in Tender Matters

This judgment nuances the principles of judicial deference in procurement:

Courts will continue to respect administrative and technical discretion of tendering authorities, especially regarding evaluation of capability and performance.
However, courts will not abdicate their role where:
- The tendering authority reads into the NIT conditions that are not there; or
- Its interpretation leads to irrational or arbitrary exclusion violating Article 14.
This restores balance between:
- The need for efficient, expert-driven procurement; and
- The constitutional mandate of fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination.

6.4 Harmonisation with Prior Case Law

The decision effectively:

Reaffirms the spirit of New Horizons and Ganpati on JV and group experience;
Deepens the doctrine in Patel Engineering, Reliance Energy, IRCTC and Dutta Associates on the need for explicit, transparent eligibility criteria; and
Qualifies the deference principles of Afcons and Bharat Coking Coal by reasserting that deference cannot legitimise irrational or arbitrary interpretations.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and Pre-qualification

An NIT is the document by which a government authority publicly invites companies or individuals to bid for a contract. It sets out:

The work to be done;
Time frames and estimated cost; and
Eligibility criteria and conditions for participation (pre-qualification criteria).

Pre-qualification criteria ensure that only capable and experienced bidders are considered, to safeguard public funds and ensure quality.

7.2 “Prime Contractor”

In commercial usage, a prime contractor is the main contractor who directly contracts with the owner (e.g., a government department) and may engage sub-contractors to carry out parts of the work.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that “prime contractor” in the NIT simply meant the tenderer – the entity submitting the bid – and did not imply an exclusion of JV-based experience unless the NIT expressly said so.

7.3 Joint Venture (JV)

A joint venture is a commercial arrangement where two or more parties agree to undertake a specific project together, sharing:

Contributions (money, expertise, equipment, etc.);
Control and managerial responsibilities; and
Risks, profits and losses.

In public works, JVs are common where a project is large or complex. The key point from this judgment is that work done through a JV counts as experience of its members, at least to the extent of their share of the work, unless a tender explicitly says otherwise.

7.4 Proportionate Experience

Proportionate experience means that if a JV member holds a specific percentage share in a JV that has executed a project, its “experience” for eligibility purposes is credited in proportion to that share.

Example from this case:

JV project value: ₹ 4904.09 lakhs.
Surguja Bricks’ JV share: 49%.
Proportionate experience: 49% of ₹ 4904.09 lakhs ≈ ₹ 2404 lakhs.
This was compared against the threshold of 50% of PAC (~₹ 2261 lakhs) and found sufficient.

7.5 Article 14 and Arbitrary Decisions

Article 14 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. In administrative and contractual decision-making, it means:

Decisions must not be arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory.
The State must apply tender conditions fairly and consistently.

An arbitrary decision is one that:

Is not based on any clear rule or standard;
Ignores relevant factors (like clear evidence of experience); or
Applies unstated or secret criteria.

7.6 Legal Certainty and Level Playing Field

Legal certainty, in the context of tenders, means that bidders should be able to clearly understand:

What the eligibility conditions are; and
How their bids will be evaluated.

A level playing field ensures that:

All bidders are treated equally;
Rules are the same for everyone; and
No bidder is secretly advantaged or disadvantaged by hidden criteria or shifting interpretations.

7.7 Judicial Review in Tender Matters

Judicial review is the power of courts to examine actions of public authorities and strike them down if they:

Exceed legal authority;
Are arbitrary or discriminatory; or
Violate constitutional guarantees (like Article 14).

In tender matters:

Courts do not typically re-evaluate technical or commercial merits of bids.
But they do intervene if the process is unfair, biased, or based on hidden or irrational criteria.

8. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Surguja Bricks Industries Company v. State of Chhattisgarh is a significant reaffirmation and clarification of public procurement law in India. Its key contributions are:

Joint Venture Experience Rule: Experience obtained by a contractor as part of a joint venture is, in principle, experience of that contractor and must be counted proportionately towards eligibility unless the NIT expressly and clearly excludes such experience.
Demand for Clear Eligibility Criteria: Tender documents must be drafted with legal certainty; hidden or implied disqualifications are impermissible. Authorities cannot read into phrases like “prime contractor in the same name and style” exclusions that are not spelt out.
Refined Standard of Judicial Deference: While deference to tendering authorities remains the norm, it does not shield interpretations that are irrational, absurd, or arbitrarily exclusionary. Judicial review remains a robust safeguard under Article 14.
Practical Effect: Contractors who invest in gaining experience through joint ventures can rely on that experience in subsequent tenders; tender authorities must either honour this or state clear contrary rules upfront.

By setting aside the disqualification of Surguja Bricks and requiring reconsideration of its bid on a correct understanding of JV experience, the Supreme Court has reinforced both the commercial realism of public contracting and the constitutional discipline that must govern state action in awarding public contracts.