The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of limited judicial interference in tender decisions, emphasizing the authority of the tendering entity in interpreting tender documents and the need for preventing arbitrariness, bias, or perversity in tender evaluations.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the action of the Steel Authority of India (Respondent/SAIL) in rejecting the Petitioner's bid in respect of a tender bearing NIT No. RSP/ROU/PROJ/NIT/TIM/22-23/03 dated 02.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as Impugned Tender) by way of a letter dated 10.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as Impugned Letter), the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the decision taken vide the said letter.

2. Shorn of details, the brief facts leading to the filing of instant writ petition are as under:

i. The Respondent floated the Impugned Tender on 02.07.2022 for engagement of Mine Developer-cum-Operator (MDO) for Development & Operation of Mines at Taldih (7.0 Mtpa ROM feed) along with installation of 10 Mtpa Loading facility at Barsua Valley.

ii. It is stated that the Petitioner submitted its techno-commercial bid in lieu of the Impugned Tender on 12.09.2022.

iii. On 19.02.2023, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that it was in the process of evaluating offers for the Tender and provided its observations on the offer made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner replied to the said e-mail confirming and accepting the observations made by the Respondent and withdrew the deviations from the bid document submitted by it along with the Tender documents.

iv. Thereafter, on 22.02.2023, the Respondent sought a declaration from the Petitioner to the effect that the quantity shown in the certificate of production is the billed quantity dispatched to the loading siding and not the ROM. It is stated that the Petitioner, provided the aforesaid declaration on 22.02.2023.

v. Subsequently, on 11.03.2023, the Respondent requested the Petitioner to submit clarification/confirmation/lacking documents with respect to two aspects. The first aspect highlighted by the Respondent is that there is an alleged deviation between the Net Worth enumerated in the Statutory Auditor's certificate, which values the Net Worth of the Petitioner at Rs.400.69 crores, whereas as per the calculation of the Respondent from the audited financial statement for the year of Financial Year 2021-22, the Net Worth of the Petitioner is Rs.393.73 crores, therefore reasons were sought from Petitioner regarding this variation. The second aspect highlighted by the Respondent is that the Petitioner has allegedly submitted certain certificates that was not duly certified by the Statutory Auditor and requested a certified copy of the same.

vi. It is stated that the Petitioner clarified the position regarding both the aforesaid queries vide letter dated 15.03.2023. The Petitioner provided a break up of its Net Worth for the financial year 2021-22, taking into account Deferred Tax Liability in addition to Paid-up Share Capital and Surplus.

vii. Thereafter the Respondent wrote to the Statutory Auditor of the Petitioner on 10.04.2023 seeking clarification on financial certificates issues to the Respondent with substantiated documents. The Petitioner's Statutory Auditor replied to the aforesaid query vide letter dated 11.04.2023. The relevant extract of the said letter is being reproduced as under:

"We have prepared the certificate on the basis of the following.

a. Shareholders' Fund forms part of the NETWORTH which consists of Paid up Capital and Reserves.

b. Calculation of NETWORTH under Indirect method does not include Deferred Tax Liability because it is not a outside liability.

In view of that Deferred Tax liability needs to be included for calculation of NETWORTH under Direct Method. Moreover, Deferred Tax liability is appropriation of the profit in compliance to AS 22 (Accounting of Taxes on Income) issued by the ICAI. This is ultimately reversed and transferred to Reserves in future years not being a outside liability. Hence this can be considered as free reserves on a given date and no specific liability exists against the same as on date.

Our view as above is on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles. "

viii. On 19.04.2023, the Petitioner wrote