JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The writ petitions involve similar facts and have been filed against the Damodar Valley Corporation. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by the judgment. A few of the dates are different; the facts and dates in WPA 27132 of 2022 are being mentioned in the judgment.

2. The petitioner participated in a Tender floated by the respondent Damodar Valley Corporation for empanelment of transportation agencies for evacuation of ash from ash ponds of Durgapur Steel Thermal Power Station of DVC. The Tender was dated 9.9.2022. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the petitioner’s techno-commercial bid on 1.12.2022 on the ground of being “Non Compliant.”

3. At the time of moving the matter the petitioner’s grievance was that the petitioner’s bid was admitted by the Tender Evaluation Committee on the same day i.e. 1.12.2022 at 2:04 pm but was rejected 11 minutes later at 2:15 pm.

4. The petitioner was granted interim protection by an order dated 9.12.2022 noting the narrow-margin of 11 minutes and directing DVC to keep any further evaluation of the Tender in abeyance until the matter is heard out on the returnable date. The interim order was extended thereafter. Affidavits are now complete in the matter.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was eligible under the Tender conditions and the techno-commercial bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected without application of mind and for extraneous considerations. Counsel puts emphasis on the margin of 11 minutes between the petitioner’s bid being accepted at 2:04pm on 1.12.2022 but thereafter being rejected at 2:15 pm on the same day. Counsel places documents to show that the reason given for the impugned rejection, namely, “Techno Commercially Non Compliant” is not a ground of rejection contemplated in the Notice Inviting Tender. Counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted all documents as required by the NIT and no reasons have been given in support of the impugned rejection.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent DVC submits that the scope of work in the NIT, namely, evacuation of ash from ash ponds of the Durgapur Steel Thermal Power Station of DVC and nuisance-free transportation along with disposal of the ash in designated places outside the plant boundary requires uninterrupted and continuous operation. Counsel submits that DVC is seriously prejudiced by the operation of the interim order. Counsel seeks to dislodge the allegation of the 11 minutes margin by stating that the bids were opened on 17.10.2022 and the Tender Inviting Authority informed the petitioner on 1.12.2022 of the impugned rejection. Counsel submits that the impugned decision is fundamentally different from administrative orders issued by the authorities in the general running of the Government and that the decision taken in the present matter is in the realm of contracts. Counsel submits that the authority is not required to give a reasoned order as long as the rejection does not suffer from any irregularity. Counsel places the affidavit filed on behalf of DVC to submit that the petitioner’s techno-commercial bid was rejected for justifiable reasons.

7. Upon considering the material on record in connection with the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Court arrives at the following findings.

8. Although the primary contention at the time of interim relief was the 11 minutes difference in the admission and rejection of the petitioner’s techno commercial bid, a closer look at the documents reveals otherwise. The petitioner’s bid was opened on 17.10.2022 along with the bids of other bidders who have participated in the tender. A host of correspondence followed thereafter including on 15.11.2022, 17.11.2022, 24.11.2022, 28.11.2022 and 29.11.2022. The correspondences are part of the affidavit filed by the DVC. The correspondence show that DVC sought for clarifications on the documents submitted by the writ pe