Tendering authorities' interpretations of eligibility criteria are upheld unless proven perverse; specific clauses direct applicability based on project value.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner herein who was unsuccessful in getting the tender for cleaning Gravity Duct No.1 from Kilokari SPS (Filter house) upto Okhla STP, which had been invited by the Respondent No.1 herein vide press notice inviting tender No. 19/EE (Civil) Plant SDW S/E/2022-23, has approached this Court challenging the award of the tender to Respondent No.4 herein on the ground that Respondent No.4 has not uploaded its bidding capacity.

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant Writ Petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that the Petitioner is a contracting company having expertise in cleaning drains/sewer lines/sumps/gravity duct by machines. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 herein (Executive Engineer (Civil) Plant SDW S/E, Delhi Jal Board) on instructions of Respondent No.2 herein (Additional Chief Engineer (P)-III, Delhi Jal Board) and in the name of Respondent No.1 herein, vide press notice inviting tender No. 19/EE (Civil) Plant SDW S/E/2022-23, invited a tender for cleaning Gravity Duct No.1 from Kilokari SPS (Filter house) upto Okhla.

b) A pre bid meeting was scheduled to be held on 23.09.2022 which could not be conducted due to technical reasons and the same was re-scheduled for 26.09.2022. The last date of submission of tender was extended from 06.10.2022 to 10.10.2020.

c) It is stated that six bids were received by the Respondent No.1, including the bid of the Petitioner herein and the Respondent No.4 herein. It is stated that all the six bids were found to be technically compliant.

d) The Financial bids were, thereafter, opened and the bid of Respondent was accepted as it was the lowest. It is stated in the Writ Petition that in order to maintain transparency, the selected bidders could view and download each other's documents after the acceptance of the bid. It is stated that when the Petitioner herein downloaded the documents of the Respondent No.4, who was the successful bidder, it was found that the Respondent No.4 did not qualify/meet the financial eligibility criteria, i.e. bidding capacity, which could not be ignored in view of the condition No.36 of the Specifications and Special Terms & Conditions for the work in question. The Petitioner relies on condition No.36 which states that the registered contractors of the Respondent No.1 herein shall be allowed to participate up to their tendering limits without checking their financial and technical credentials except bidding capacity. The Petitioner has, thereafter, filed the instant Writ Petition with the following prayer(s):

"A. Declare the decision of the Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 for accepting the bid of the Respondent No.4 for tender ref. no. 19/EE (Civil) Plant SDW S/E/2022-23 being arbitrary, illegal, void; and unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Indian;

B. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction directing the Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 to withdraw the decision of accepting the bid of the Respondent No. 4 for tender ref. no. 19/EE (Civil) Plant SDW S/E/2022-23;

C. Direct the Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 to issue formal letter cancelling/withdrawing the decision of accepting the bid of the Respondent No. 4 with respect to the tender ref. no. 19/EE (Civil) Plant SDW S/E/2022-23;

D. direct the Respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 to not to issue any work order with respect to tender ref. no. 19/EE (Civil) Plant SDW S/E/2022-23 issued in favour the Respondent No. 4 i.e., M/S Raj Engg. Company;

E. Direct the Re