( 1 ). THIS Letters Patent Appeal was listed for admission, but we have heard all the parties at length for decision of the case finally, keeping in view the urgency of the subject-matter, and the interim directions which were sought by the petitioner-appellant.

( 2 ). This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of learned single Judge dated 7th february, 2000, dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 10548 of 1999, preferred by the present appellant M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited (hereinafter shortly referred as "l. and T. Ltd. "); seeking intervention and directions in the matter of award of contract to Respondent No. 3 A. B. B. Kraftwerke AG, A. B. B. Power Generation Limited (hereinafter shortly referred as "a. B. B. Ltd. "), for setting up of 160 M. W. Natural Gas Fired Combined cycle Power Plant at Hazira, in the State of Gujarat. The two main contenders for the contract aforementioned are the appellant company L. and T. Ltd. , and respondent No. 3 A. B. B. Ltd.

( 3 ). Learned single Judge by the impugned order went in great and minutest details of the technical and financial aspects of the contract in coming to a conclusion that, there has been no unfairness in the decision making process for selecting respondent No. 3 A. B. B. Ltd. , for grant of contract by the Gujarat state Petroleum Corporation Limited, the Respondent No. 1 (shortly referred hereinafter as "corporation" ). According to the Corporation, as far as possible, complete objectivity was maintained in making selection in consultation with technical, financial and management experts on the selection board, which is demonstrated from the minutes of the meeting of the 4th Management Committee of the Directors of the Company held on 4th September, 1999 in Udyog Bhavan, gandhinagar. In the process of selecting a suitable contractor for the project, on various attributes and qualifications of the competing companies, marks were allotted, and on the basis of those marks final selection was made. The basic challenge on behalf of the petitioner L. and T. Ltd. , is about the evaluation procedure adopted in making the final selection. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri. Venugopal appearing on behalf of the appellant-company L. and T. Ltd. , limited his arguments to challenging the lower marks allotted to the appellant-company and higher marks allotted to the respondent A. B. B. Ltd. , to deprive the petitioner company of the contract. The evaluation method and the allotment of marks on each head as per the laid down criteria have been given in a tabular chart as under :-

( 21 ). Quality of Proposal and Background/experience in respect of successful completion of E. P. C. Contracts in Power Sector : (5 marks to A. B. B. and 4 marks to L. and T. Ltd.) on behalf of appellant L. and T. it was submitted that there was no justification to award one mark less to L. and T. on the above criteria as against full marks to A. B. B. . The relevant part of the decision of the Managing Committee contained in its minutes read as under :-" (iv) The R. F. P. required that a G. T. manufacturer be a part of biding consortium. In respect of L. and T. bid, consortium comprise of L. and T. and sumitomo, and Sumitomo represents Hitachi in the consortium, the arrangement does not exactly fulfill the R. F. P. criteria in respect of consortium arrangement. The committee deliberated this issue and decided that one mark be deducted in case of L. and T. on above account. Consequently, A. B. B. , L. and T. and b. S. E. S. get awarded 5, 4 and 5 marks respectively. "

( 22 ) THE objective to giving of one mark less to L. and T. , on its behalf it is submitted that among the bidders A. B. B. were manufacturers of Gas Turbines (G. T. ). The other bidders like L. and T. , B. S. E. S. were not the manufacturers, but they had a consortium with Sumitomo and Sumitomo had a consortium with hitachi and Gujarat State Enegy Generation Li