JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Kumar, J. - Heard Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel/Additional Advocate General for the respondents. Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India has also rendered his assistance.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of blacklisting dated 04.11.2020 passed by the respondent/ BUIDCO on the ground of the same being arbitrary, malafide and only for the purpose of deliberately disqualifying the petitioner from participating in any future bid, particularly the present bid, so as to provide advantage to a private respondent/ M.S. Toshiba Water Solutions Private Limited.

3. The sum and substance of the argument of the petitioner is that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on the sole ground of his having furnished misleading information with respect to the experience in setting up of sewage treatment plant, is absolutely unwarranted, unjustified and is not borne out by the facts of the case. In the Standard Bidding Document (S.B.D.), qualification criteria has been set forth in Annexure -A of part-H thereof. It specifically delineates that a bidder's qualification would be evaluated on compliance with all the minimum pass / fail criteria fixed by the authorities regarding their general design, build, construct, operation and maintenance experience of sewerage network, financial strength, personnel and management capabilities etc. The bidders are required to submit their bid either as a stand-alone firm / legal entity or a joint venture upto a maximum of three partners. With respect to experience in construction and operation and maintenance of sewage treatment and sewerage network, a successful bidder is required to provide evidence of its designing, developing, building, testing and commissioning of at least one sewage treatment plant of 22 M.L.D. capacity of secondary treatment of sewage during the last seven years preceding the bid submission date. It further specifies that such experience should have been of the bidder or of his nominated sub - contractor.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with this requirement of a bidder to become technically responsive to the bid, certain evidence was required to be furnished. The petitioner has furnished his technical capabilities of having constructed, designed and maintained sewage treatment plant of higher capacity than what is required in the present bid. Apart from this, the information provided by the firm/petitioner in form 2 and 3B are also correct and is not in any manner misleading. Form 2 and 3B, which are the part of S.B.D. solicit information with respect to general design, build, operation and maintenance experience information. The first column specifies that the name of the bidder or participant of a joint venture ought to be stated. The individual firms and all participants of a joint venture are further required to complete the information in the form with regard to their experience in designing, building, operating etc. of sewage networks. In form2, there is a column which requires to be filled up by the bidder regarding the nature, role and extent of participation. This column has not been filled up by the petitioner but a certificate of U.P. Jal Nigam, the authority under which such work was conducted by the petitioner, has been annexed along with the bid document. Similar information has been solicited under form 3A in which also, the petitioner has given the exact details sans its contribution, responsibility and the extent of participation in such project.

5. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, is that such information was only in the nature of an additional information (as in form 2 and 3B of the S.B.D.) which may or may not have been relied upon by the authorities. Additionally, it has been submitted that no wrong statement has been given in these forms. There could have been no intention of misl