ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the disqualification of petitioner No.1, vide e-mail dated 10.04.2021 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the technical and financial bids of the petitioners in accordance with the terms provided in Bid No.GEM/2021/B/1029182 dated 11.02.2021 issued by the Senior Divisional Material Manager (Sr. DMM), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada, respondent No.2 herein.

2. The factual matrix which is relevant and germane for the purpose of the resolution of the issues in the present Writ Petition is as infra:

Petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of providing industrial security and also providing men on outsourcing basis for housekeeping and sanitation services to various governmental agencies and private entities. Petitioner No.2 is a shareholder and also the Managing Director of petitioner No.1-company and petitioner No.1-company had been providing services of comprehensive mechanized cleaning of coaches at Vijayawada Coach Depot for South Central Railway since 27.03.2017 and the period of contract came to an end on 03.07.2021. Respondent No.2 herein floated fresh tender, vide Bid No.GEM/2021/B/ 1029182, dated 11.02.2021, at Government e-Market Place (GeM) portal. Petitioner No.1 participated in the tenders, vide its e-mail dated 26.02.2021 for providing services of mechanized cleaning of coaches, cleaning of depot premises, garbage collection and disposal at Coaching Depot. Vide e-mail dated 10.04.2021 from GeM portal, it was informed that the technical evaluation of tender was complete and the result of the evaluation was uploaded on the portal and the petitioners came to know that their bid came to be disqualified on the ground that they failed to submit notarized copy of the Power of Attorney (PoA) and respondent No.3 emerged as the successful bidder and all other bids including the bid of the petitioners were disqualified.

3. In the above background, alleging infraction of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, this Writ Petition came to be instituted.

4. After receipt of notices, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent-railway authorities and respondent No.3 and an additional affidavit has also been filed by the writ petitioners.

5. Heard Sri Durga Bose Gandham, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K. Aruna, learned Standing Counsel for the South Central Railway for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for respondent No.3, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the action impugned is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, iniquitous and a patent infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India; that the petitioners already submitted a certified copy of the Board Resolution, authorizing the authorized signatory of petitioner No.1 to sign and submit the bid on their behalf; that the mere non-submission of notarized Power of Attorney does not make the bid of petitioner No.1 technically unsound to provide required services nor the terms of the tender indicate that non-submission of the notarized Power of Attorney would lead to disqualification of the tender of petitioner No.1; that the petitioners have been providing similar services to the respondents under the ambit of the existing contract between the parties since 2017; that the non-submission of the notarized Power of Attorney is not so critical that the technical qualification of petitioner No.1 can be overlooked; that the non-submission of the notarized Power of Attorney was only due to inadvertent oversight and unintentional and no specific format was given; that th