1. In this writ petition, the petitioner herein questions the action of the 2nd respondent in considering the bid of the 3rd respondent and declaring it as the successful tenderer on 16.05.2015 in respect of the notified works, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has issued a e-Tender Notice, (hereinafter referred to as “the NIT”) in respect of the works pertaining to Drilling, Excavation, Loading, Transportation, Dumping, Spreading & Leveling etc., of 1896.286 LBCM of overburden (i.e., 1863.006 LBM of In-Situ OB and 33.280 LCM of Coal) by using HEMM including Additional works viz., 6.00 lakh Drilling Meterage, 1500 Shovel Hours, 1500 Dozer Hours and De-silting of 3 LBCM from 2 No’s of Cheruvu/Tanks at RKOCP, Mandamarri area for a period of 72 months – Enquiry No: E111300503, dated 12.03.2015. The tenders submitted were opened on 16.05.2015 at 5-00 p.m., and out of 12 bids received, one was disqualified technically and, the other 11 price bids were opened and rankings were given, whereby the 3rd respondent was ranked as the lowest L-1 and the petitioner herein was ranked as the lowest L-2. While the 3rd respondent’s bid was for Rs.1,021.00 Crores, the petitioner’s bid was for Rs.1,062.00 Crores.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is a Joint Venture Company, of which the bidder is a constituent and the same was confirmed under Ex.P-3, letter No.PSIV/TECH/2367, dated 27.04.2015 of the petitioner, which has participated in the bid and submitted bank guarantee towards the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent is disqualified as it does not fulfil the minimum experience and the turnover requirement, as mentioned in Clauses 1.14 and 2.7, respectively, of the NIT and in support of that, the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent was incorporated only on 19.02.2014, however, it is unilaterally treated as eligible and designated as L-1. The petitioner also submits that the 3rd respondent is a Private Limited Company, but it claims experience and annual turnover of M/s. Dott Services Limited, which is a Foreign Company, registered at Kampala, Uganda, and the later company, being distinct and different from the 3rd respondent, and ignoring the fact that it is only the 3rd respondent, who has submitted the bid, respondent No.2 has wrongly treated that the Uganda Company is the bidder and has erroneously taken into consideration the experience and financial capacity of the said foreign company for qualifying the 3rd respondent and thereby the actions of the 2nd respondent are said to be contrary to the NIT, discriminatory, arbitrary and leads to favouritism and also opposed to the Rule of Law.

4. In support of the writ petition, various provisions of the NIT, as stated above, and other provisions are quoted vis-à-vis, it is contended that the petitioner – Joint Venture has fully complied with the necessary experience and financial capacity and as it has already executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the bidder company, which is now erroneously treated as L-2. Copies of the Power of Attorney by the Joint Venture and the Power of Attorney of the Managing Director of the bidder company, together with the Board Resolution of the bidder company, are appended to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

5. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has elaborated the aforesaid submissions by placing strong reliance upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, a reference of which will be made, at the appropriate place.

6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, denying the averments of the petitioner. It has given the details of all the bidders, the amount quoted by them and the rankings given to each one of them, and submitted that the 3rd respondent has emerged as