The court emphasized the need for restraint and deference to the tendering authority's interpretation of tender documents, especially in technical matters, and highlighted the importance of public interest in justifying judicial intervention in contractual matters involving state instrumentalities.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking, inter alia, setting aside the decision taken by Respondent No.2, i.e. Engineers India Ltd. (EIL), to reject the bid submitted by the Petitioners as well as to quash the email dated 23.02.2023 whereby reasons were provided by Respondent No.2 for rejection of the Petitioners' bid.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:

a) It is stated that Respondent No.3, i.e. Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) operates a 3.0 MMTPA Refinery at Numaligarh, Golaghat, Assam. In order expand the capacity of the refinery from 3.0 MMTPA to 9.0 MMTPA, Respondent No.3 appointed Respondent No.2 as the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM) Consultant.

b) In light of the expansion it was decided to procure additional quantity of crude oil and for that purpose, it was planned that crude oil which was being imported through the Paradip port in Odisha would be supplied to the refinery. For this purpose, it was decided to lay cross country pipeline of around 1634 kms. length from Paradip port to Numaligarh for transporting 8 MMBT of imported crude oil. It was proposed to install the pipeline using "micro tunnelling technique and pipe jacking method". Bids were invited on 02.12.2022 by Respondent No.2, on behalf of Respondent No.3, i.e. Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL), for "Microtunneling works for NRL expansion project of Numaligarh Refinery Limited" vide Bid Document No. SM/B302-000-MK-T-9511/1022 (Domestic Competitive Bidding) bearing E-Tendering No. 2022_EIL_723611_1). The last date and time for online submission of bids was up to 12:00 PM on 02.01.2023. It is stated that vide corrigendum dated 02.01.2023, the last date for the submission of the bid had been extended to 16.01.2023.

c) It is stated that the Petitioners submitted their bids on 16.01.2023, and on 31.01.2023, certain queries were raised by Respondent No.2 which were to be answered by the Petitioners b 03.03.2023. It is stated that the Petitioners responded to the said queries, along with supporting documents on 03.02.2023, however, vide letter dated 03.02.2023 issued by Respondent No.2, the deadline for responding to the queries was extended from 03.02.2023 to 06.02.2023. On 06.02.2023, the Petitioners re-submitted the response, along with the requisite documents which were modified. It is stated that another query was raised by Respondent No.2 on 08.02.2023 which was duly answered by the Petitioners on 11.02.2023.

d) It is stated that vide an SMS dated 21.02.2023 at 8:30 P.M., the Petitioners were informed by Respondent No.2 that their bid had been rejected during the technical evaluation. This was uploaded on the e-procurement system of Respondent No.1 as well. It is stated that the Petitioners wrote a letter dated 22.02.2023 to Respondent No.2 seeking reasons for rejection of the bid, however, no response to the same was received. It is stated that after following up, a mail dated 23.02.2023 was sent by Respondent No.2, noting that primary reason for rejection of the bid was that the bidder had not furnished any documentary evidence in compliance of requirements of bid document to establish the technical qualification criteria. Detailed reasons regarding the same were also provided.

e) Aggrieved by the decision of Respondent No.2, the Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

3. Mr. Puneet Agarwal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners herein, submits that the bid of the Petitioners was submitted only after it was found that it was duly qualified to participate in the bidding process. He submits that various queries were raised by Respondent No.2, on 31.01.2023 and then on 08.02.2023, and in both the instances, the Petitioners responded to the queries well before the deadline with clarification and supporting documents.

4. Mr. Agarwal submits that t