The proceedings under challenge in this writ petition is the order of the 2nd respondent dated, 3.8.2013 rejecting the petitioner's bids for two works i.e., (1) construction of internal roads for 176 Units Type-III/B quarters in Donimalai Township, and (2) desilting of 2.00 lakh cum Iron Ore Slime from tailing Dam.

2. The facts, to the extent relevant, are that the 2nd respondent issued notifications dated 13.10.2012 and 21.11.2012 inviting tenders from competent, experienced and financially sound civil contractors for execution of the aforesaid works. The tender documents consisted of two parts, Part-I was the techno-commercial bid, and Part-II the price bid. The petitioner, a civil contractor who claims to have executed various civil works for the 1st respondent at various project sites from the year 2006 onwards, submitted its bid pursuant to the aforesaid tender notifications. The tenders, relating to Part-I techno-commercial bids, were opened on 29.11.2012 and 31.12.2012 and the petitioner's Part-I techno-commercial tender was found eligible for execution of the subject works. While matters stood thus the 2nd respondent, vide letter dated 17.4.2013, informed the petitioner that, during scrutiny of their techno-commercial bids, it was observed that Prime Constructions (a partnership firm which had merged with the petitioner) had tampered with the certificate, issued in their name by the Bachili Complex of the 1st respondent, while enclosing it with their tender submitted to Bhilai Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Ltd., ("SAIL" for short); and it was also learnt that there was a case pending against Prime Constructions with SAIL, Bhilai in this regard. The petitioner was requested to explain the facts and to show-cause why their bid, for the above mentioned works, should not be rejected in view of the alleged offence.

3. The petitioner submitted its explanation thereto, vide letter dated 21.4.2013, contending that neither the petitioner nor Prime Constructions had participated in the tender floated by Bhilai Steel Plant; Prime Constructions, Bhilai was a different firm from Prime Constructions, Hyderabad, and had no nexus with the erstwhile firm; there was no case pending against Prime Constructions with SAIL, Bhilai as stated by the 2nd respondent; they learnt, after enquiry, that the price bid for the tender in question was not opened, and even the EMD had been refunded. Thereafter the 2nd respondent, vide letter dated 3.8.2013, informed the petitioner that their explanation was not satisfactory; the charges, alleged in the show-cause notice dated 17.4.2013, may be treated as part of the letter dated 3.8.2013 for the purpose of brevity; and, in view of the above, the competent authority had approved rejection of the petitioner's bid for the aforesaid two works.

4. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the project Vigilance Department had informed that there was a case pending against Prime Constructions with SAIL Bhilai, for submitting a false and fabricated experience certificate of NMDC (a tampered work order and completion certificate issued by NMDC for the work executed at their Bacheli Complex); when Prime Constructions had merged with the petitioner on 1.4.2010 it was not known how they could have participated in the SAIL tender on 9.2.2011; SAIL, Bhilai had requested the Bacheli Complex of NMDC to verify the NMDC work completion certificate submitted to them by Prime Constructions; the Bachili Complex of NMDC had verified the documents and had informed SAIL that the said documents were tampered, and not in line with the documents issued by them; the figure 2.5 lakh cubic meters in the work completion certificate was tampered to 5.00 lakh cubic meters; the work of "Development of Haul road from Dep.11B Mine to Dumper Platform" was awarded to Prime Constructions on 7.5.2010; as Prime Constructions had merged with the petitioner, and was dissolved on 1.4.2010, it