IMPORTANT POINT
A bidder's eligibility in a tender process is strictly governed by the conditions outlined in the tender documents, and failure to comply results in disqualification.

JUDGMENT:

Amit Borkar, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel of the respective parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. With the consent of the respective counsel and at their request, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. Respondent No. 2, Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation, issued an invitation for bids on February 16, 2024, for the execution of work related to Scientific Dumpsite Land Reclamation through Bio-mining, Resource Recovery, and the scientific disposal of rejects at the Municipal Solid Waste Dumping Ground, Ichalkaranji. Four bidders, including the petitioner and Respondent No. 3, submitted their offers. The Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by Respondent No. 2 outlined the general terms and conditions and the scope of work for the tender. The RFP stipulated that the tender process would follow a two-stage system. In the first stage, pursuant to Condition No. 5.1.3, proposals were scrutinized for responsiveness to the RFP requirements, with only responsive proposals proceeding to the second stage. The second stage, as per Condition No. 5.1.4, involved a technical evaluation based on the criteria set forth in the RFP document. It was specifically provided that the financial bids of only those bidders who met the technical qualification criteria would be opened.

4. The technical bids were opened on July 11, 2024. The tender committee scrutinized the documents submitted by all four bidders, including the petitioner's objection regarding the ineligibility of Respondent No. 3 due to an order of debarment issued by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation. The committee opined that the project management consultant was responsible for verifying the certificate provided by the petitioner, which indicated the debarment of Respondent No. 3. Consequently, the committee decided to qualify the petitioner, Respondent No. 3, and another bidder, and recommended the opening of the financial bids submitted by them. The decision of the tender committee dated July 11, 2024, declaring Respondent No. 3 eligible to participate in the tender process, is being challenged in the present writ petition.

5. In challenging the decision to declare Respondent No. 3 eligible, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 3 failed to meet the pre-qualification criteria prescribed by Condition No. 2.3.4, which required the bidder to provide proof of RDF supply by producing a certificate from a cement factory, power plant, waste-to-energy plant, or Urban Local Body (ULB) confirmed and signed by the Head of Department (HOD) or executive engineer, for the disposal of at least 20% of the RDF quantity, which, according to the petitioner, amounts to 69,873.84 metric tons.

6. According to the petitioner, the total RDF supply based on certificates from the cement factory, power plant, and waste-to-energy plant is 55,197.32 metric tons. The petitioner relied on Clause 3.2.4 of the tender conditions, which stipulates that any entity barred or blacklisted by the Central Government, any State Government, a statutory authority, or a public sector undertaking from participating in any project, where such bar or blacklisting is in effect on the date of proposal submission, would be ineligible to submit a proposal, either independently or through an associate. The petitioner contended that the certificate relied upon by Respondent No. 3, issued by a paper mill, could not be considered for evaluating the eligibility of Respondent No. 3. The date of the proposal submission, as per the petitioner, was January 9, 2023. The communication dated July 21, 2023, issued by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, indicated that Respondent No. 3 was debarred for a period of two years, a fact not contested by Respondent No. 3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 was disqualified on the date of submission of the tender.

7. Conversely, it was argued on behalf of Respondent No. 3 that Respondent No. 2 had appoint