JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The facts in both the writ petitions are identical and the dispute is between the same parties. The contentions of learned counsel are admittedly the same in both the cases. Both the writ petitions are hence being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid in a tender floated by the respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) for empanelment of transportation agencies for evacuation of ash from the ash ponds of DVC and disposal of the same in abandoned open cast mines. The petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on 15.11.2022 on “Administrative Ground”. The petitioner sought for the reasons of rejection by a letter dated 16.11.2022. The reply of the respondent dated 24.11.2022 is part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The reasons furnished relate to the alleged pilferage of DVC’s transported good quality coal and registration of an FIR by DVC on 9.6.2018 in relation to the alleged fraudulent practice.

3. One of the other reasons stated in this letter is the petitioner’s transgression of section 3 of the Integrity Pact which was treated as a part of the tender documents.

4. The petitioner, through learned counsel, says that the impugned rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid should be quashed as the reasons subsequently furnished by DVC on 24.11.2022 do not conform to the tender documents and particularly section 3 of the Integrity Pact taken along with the other sections of the said document. Counsel relies on the “Policy for withholding and Banning of Business Dealings” as only being applicable to a bidder subject to the bidder being convicted under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Counsel also seeks to dispute the allegation of pilferage by relying on an Award passed by an arbitrator in favour of the petitioner on 14.8.2021.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent DVC relies on the fact of the petitioner’s Managing Director being charge-sheeted on 24.10.2019 under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the registration of an FIR before that on 9.6.2018. Counsel submits that the petitioner has transgressed section 3 of the Integrity Pact by suppressing the fact of the FIR. Counsel submits that DVC, as the Tendering Authority is authorised to interpret the terms of the tender in a manner which would safeguard the interest of the DVC. Counsel further submits that a judgment passed by this Court in an earlier matter in WPA 23775 of 2022 was set aside by the Division Bench and hence the issues raised by the petitioner should be treated as settled and binding on the parties. Counsel submits that the first rejection was an auto-generated mail which was clarified by the DVC in the later communication of 24.11.2022. Counsel submits that the petitioner had suppressed the facts of the FIR and the charge-sheet in 14 other tenders floated by DVC which authorises the DVC to reject the petitioner’s technical bid. Counsel relies on several decisions of the Supreme Court which have held that Courts must not interfere in commercial matters since that would have harmful repercussions on commerce and the economy at large.

6. The controversy in the present matter relates to the rejection by DVC of the petitioner’s technical bid by way of a letter dated 24.11.2022. The reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid as stated in the letter, are as follows:

i) Fraudulent practices relating to pilferage of DVC’s transported good quality coal which according to the DVC was proved on 1.6.2018 and an FIR was registered on 9.6.2018. A charge sheet was filed on 24.10.2019.

ii) Suppression of the charges of pilferage and fraudulent practices. iii) Transgression of section 3 of the Integrity Pact.

DVC gave the above reasons to supplement the communication dated 15.11.2022 which showed that the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on “administrative ground”.

7. The qu