Compliance with tender conditions, including financial capacity, submission of necessary documents, and establishment of required past experience, is crucial for the acceptance of bids.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. - The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner/ M/s Shri Swami Samarth Engineers Ltd. to seek the following reliefs:-

"(i) ISSUE appropriate writ (s) or writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent to withdraw and cancel the Technical Evaluation Report dated 03.02.2021 and allow the Petitioner to participate in the bidding process and clarify and submit any documents necessary; AND/OR;

(ii) ISSUE appropriate writ or writs to protect the rights of Petitioner to proper hearing and direct the Respondent to consider Petitioner's bid in oral hearing;"

2. The petitioner, alongwith its joint-venture partner, responded to the Tender/Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by the respondent/NHAI for 4- laning of Pangare to Waranga Phata section from Km 134.500 to Km 174.645 (Design Chainage) of NH-161 including Bypasses at Kalamnuri and Akhada Balapur and additional lengths of 800 m from Waranga Junction to Nanded (NH-161) (existing Chainage 244.360) and 700 m road from Waranga Junction (NH-161) to Mahagaon (NH-361) (existing Chainage 253.700) in the State of Maharashtra on EPC mode. The bid was submitted in the name of the joint-venture, namely M/s Shri Swami Samarth Engineers Ltd.-M/s L B Kunjir (JV).

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/NHAI who appears on advance notice, at the outset submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, having been filed by one of the members of the joint-venture. He submits that if the joint-venture was aggrieved by any decision of the respondent, the petition should have been preferred by the joint-venture itself and not by one of the partners solely. We find merit in this submission. The petitioner being only a member of the joint-venture cannot act singly, and would have no locus standi to prefer this petition. It is the joint-venture which is the party dealing with and recognised by the respondent and only the joint-venture can raise a grievance with regard to rejection of its bid. On this short ground, this petition is liable to be rejected. However, we have heard the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner on merits as well, and so we proceed to deal with them as well.

4. The case of the petitioner is that in response to the bid submitted by the joint-venture, the respondent had issued a communication on 05.01.2021 seeking certain clarifications from the joint-venture regarding its bid. The relevant extract of the said letter reads as under: