Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides; decisions should reflect fair competition and not accommodate late submissions of corrected bids.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner herein seeking issuance of writ/order/directions to the Respondent No.2 herein for setting aside its decision of rejecting the technical bid of the Petitioner herein with respect to tender response to the Request for Selection (hereinafter referred to as "RfS") Document bearing RfS No. REMCL/CO/PP/P-85/RTC/1000 MW/2022, which was floated by the Respondent No.1 herein through Respondent No.2 herein for Selection of Project Developers for Supply of 1000 MW of Round-the-Clock Power from Grid-Connected Renewable Energy Power Projects with or without Storage.

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

a) Petitioner herein is a wholly owned subsidiary of ReNew Power Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as `ReNew Power') which is a renewable energy company. Respondent No.2 herein is a Joint Venture company of Ministry of Railways (Respondent No.1 herein) and Rail India Technical and Economic Service Limited. Respondent No.1 herein has designated Respondent No. 2 as Nodal Agency of Indian Railways for implementation of Renewable Energy Projects.

b) It is stated that on 14.07.2022, Respondent No. 2 floated a Tender, being RfS No. REMCL/CO/PP/P-85/RTC/1000 MW/2022, for Selection of Project Developers for Supply of 1000 MW of Round-the-Clock (hereinafter referred to as "RTC") Power from Grid-Connected Renewable Energy (hereinafter referred to as "RE") Power Projects with or without Storage. It is stated that the bidding process involved three steps, namely, Technical Bid, Financial Bid and electronic Reverse Auction.

c) It is stated that a corrigendum dated 17.10.2022 was issued by the Respondent No.2 herein re-notifying the last date for submission of bid as 09.11.2022 and for opening of the bid as 11.11.2022.

d) In terms of the bid document, the bidders were to first submit their technical bids containing all the documents, i.e. the formats and other attachments as per Clause 3.23.2 of the bid document. It is stated that along with the technical bids, the bidders were also required to submit their financial bids containing documents regarding tariff. It is pertinent to mention here that in terms of the bid document, the financial bids submitted by the bidders were to be opened only if they are found to be eligible as per the technical bids submitted by them.

e) It is stated that the Petitioner herein participated in the tender process and submitted its bid document on 09.11.2022 for 600 MW capacity.

f) It is stated that the tender was opened on 11.11.2022. On 17.11.2022, Respondent No.2 herein sent an email to the Petitioner herein requesting it to provide the bank reference copy of bank guarantee issuance message transmitted by issuing Bank to the Bank of the Respondent No.2.

g) It is stated that on 16.12.2022, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Respondent No.2 stating that during review of its technical documents, it was found that it had inadvertently submitted unconsolidated financial data for ReNew Power in Format 7.6 for Financial Requirement instead of consolidated financial data for ReNew Power. It is stated that the Petitioner requested Respondent No.2 to consider revised Format 7.6 for Financial Requirement which was submitted by the Petitioner along with the letter dated 06.12.2022.

h) It is stated that the Petitioner came to know from industry colleagues that they had received an email dated 10.12.2022 from the Respondent No.2 here