Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, namely M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited and M/s. NCC Infra Holdings Limited, which have formed into a consortium, have filed this writ petition praying to grant the following relief:

The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order especially in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the 1st and 2nd respondents have failed to comply with the conditions precedent contained in paragraph 3.5 of the Request for Proposal and, consequently, declare that the petitioners are not in default of the terms and conditions contained in the Request for Proposal and Letter of Award dated 06.10.2008 for the Development of AP Bhavan in New Delhi and, consequently, set aside G.O. Ms. No. 8, Infrastructure and Investments (IID-2) Department, dated 20.02.2009 cancelling the Letter of Award and pass such other order (s) as the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Respondent No.2, namely, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, have in their possession an extent of Acs. 22.222 cents of land in and around A.P. Bhavan, New Delhi. Out of the said extent, they have earmarked an extent of Acs. 12.568 cents (comprising A.P. Bhavan and Old Nursing College Hostel) for “institutional use”, and the balance extent of land i.e. Acs. 7.564 cents (Pataudi House) for “residential use”. The petitioners have to execute the project by development of lands belonging to the Government of Andhra Pradesh situated in and around Andhra Pradesh Bhavan, on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis.

For developing those lands, respondent No.2, vide G.O. Ms. No. 423, dated 14.09.2005, nominated respondent No.1, namely M/s. Infrastructure Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (INCAP) as their “Executing Agency” for development of the project called “Development of Andhra Pradesh Centre at New Delhi” under Public-Private Partnership mode. Respondent No.2 further decided to constitute a “Special Empowered Committee” consisting of experts and high-ranking officials, to guide and monitor the progress of the project. Thereafter, vide G.O. Ms. No. 436, dated 23.09.2005, respondent No.2, constituted the “Special Empowered Committee”. On 20.06.2006, respondent No.1 addressed a letter to respondent No.2 to constitute a “Technical Advisory Committee”. Acting on the said letter, respondent No.2, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 6, dated 12.07.2006, constituting Technical Advisory Committee, for advising on matters encompassing all activities, such as, pre-design, legal, construction management, evaluation of conceptual models, architectural designs and evaluation of construction drawing with respect of amenities like Water supply, Sanitary, Electricity, Fire Fighting, Lighting, etc. and recommend appropriate guiding principles at all steps of the project.

While so, on 07.11.2007, respondent No.1 notified “Expression of Interest-cum-Request for Qualification” fixing the last date for submission of tenders as 30.11.2007. Responding to the same, 14 developers, including the petitioners submitted their tenders. The Technical Advisory Committee, having considered the qualifications, on 06.02.2008, qualified the names of ten developers, for the purpose of issuance of Request for Proposal - Technical Document. Thereafter, respondent No.1, vide letter dated 23.04.2008, informed those ten developers, including the petitioners that they are selected for issuance of Request for Proposals, and accordingly they were given the Request for Proposals.

On 14.05.2008, respondent No.1 conducted the pre-bid meeting, and claims to have cleared the doubts raised by six developers, including the petitioners. The petitioners’ technical bid qualified when it was opened on the last date of submission of Request for Proposal on 31.05.2008. The Technical Advisory Committee, after considering the Request for Proposal of the petit