BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner (Synergy Steels Ltd [‘SSL’]) seeks:-

(a) quashing of the act of the respondent no.1 (Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board [‘PNGRB’]) granting extension of time to the respondent no.2 (Indian Oil – Adani Gas (P) Ltd [‘IOAGPL’] for submitting the Performance Bank Guarantee;

(b) quashing of the Letter of Intent [‘LOI’] issued by PNGRB in favour of IOAGPL;

(c) the issuance of a writ, order or direction requiring PNGRB to declare IOAGPL as disqualified and to declare the petitioner (SSL) as the successful bidder.

2. This petition pertains to the public notice dated 26.09.2013 issued by PNGRB inviting bids for development of City Gas Distribution networks in, inter alia, Ernakulam District (Kerala) in terms of Regulation 5(5) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2008 Regulations”).

3. In brief, the case of SSL is that IOAGPL, after being given the LOI dated 20.01.2015 for grant of authorization, did not furnish the requisite performance bank guarantee of Rs. 4248 crores within the period of 15 days of the said LOI and, therefore, the said LOI is liable to be quashed. It is also the case of SSL that the extension of time given to IOAGPL by PNGRB for submitting the Performance Bank Guarantee beyond the period of 15 days stipulated in the said LOI was contrary to the tender conditions and the 2008 Regulations. The Performance Bank Guarantee was submitted on 17.06.2015. The petitioner (SSL) also contends that non-submission of the Performance Bank Guarantee within the stipulated time entailed not only the cancellation of the said LOI but also the disqualification of IOAGPL and consequent entitlement of SSL to be issued the LOI being the next highest bidder. The following decisions of the Supreme Court were referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for SSL:-

(1) Reliance Energy Ltd v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd: (2007) 8 SCC 1 [para 36];

(2) WB State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Others: 2001 (2) SCC 451 (para 24).

4. The case of IOAGPL is that at the stage of consideration of financial bids, there was a tie as regards the Composite Scores between (1) Kerala GAIL Gas Ltd, (2) IOAGPL and (3) SSL and, accordingly, the tie-breaker rule stipulated in Regulation 7(3) of the 2008 Regulations as also in the tender conditions got triggered, which required the submission of additional bid bonds. It was contended that IOAGPL submitted an additional bid bond of Rs 1059 crores whereas SSL submitted an additional bid bond of only Rs 10 crores, followed by Kerala GAIL Gas Ltd which submitted an additional bid bond of Rs 3 crores only. Therefore, IOAGPL became the ‘selected entity’ and also furnished the bank guarantee for the additional bid bond amount of Rs 1059 crores within the stipulated time on 12.01.2015. It was contended that IOAGPL, having complied with all stipulations and timelines, was validly issued the LOI on 20.01.2015 and at that stage SSL was out of the race. The only thing remaining to be done was to furnish the performance bank guarantee which was to be four times of the bid bond (original plus additional). The performance bank guarantee of Rs 4248 crores was also furnished, though after extension of time. It was submitted that in terms of the tender conditions itself, time for furnishing the performance bank guarantee could be extended at the option of PNGRB. It was submitted on behalf of IOAGPL that the extension of time was not illegal or contrary to the tender conditions and, therefore, could not be faulted and that IOAGPL was entitled to the issuance of the Grant of Authorization for Ernakulam District.

5. On behalf of the PNGRB it was submitted that after the LOI was issued to IOAGPL, being the ‘selected entity’ based on the tie-brea