JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing WP(C) 7073/2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking for quashing and setting aside of the clause Nos. 4(II), 4(III) and 4(V) of the Disqualification Conditions contained in the General Information to Tenderers (hereinafter referred to as 'GIT' for brevity) appended to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) dated 30.08.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1 i.e. FCI for the work of "Handling And Transport Contract Ex-Rly Siding Salchapra to FSD Badarpurghat via Weigh Bridge including handling at FSD Badarpurghat"; and fer directing the respondents to permit the petitioner No. 1 to submit its bid pursuant to the aforesaid NIT. By filing WP(C) No. 9153/2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the decision of the respondent No. 1, uploaded on 2.12.2019, thereby rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner No. 1 in respect of NIT dated 4.10.2019 for the work of "Transport Contract Ex-Rly Siding/FSD Tinsukiato FSD Anini via Weigh Bridge (distance 324 kms)"; and for directing the respondents to consider the bid of petitioner No. 1 company as technically responsive in view of stay order passed in Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 44/2019; and for further directing the respondent No. 1 authorities to open the price bid of the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid NIT. Upon being submitted that both the writ petitions are interconnected, both the writ petitions have been analogously heard.

3. The undisputed backdrop of these two writ petitions are that the petitioner No. 1 has an interest in a proprietorship farm in the name and style of Purvanchal Communication, which entered into a joint-venture with one Radhika Express Service and in the name and style of Purvanchal Communication Radhika Express (JV) and participated in a tender process bearing tender No. CE/COM/N-K/CRG/201709/RT-1 issued by the N.F. Railway authorities for the work of "Loading, Unloading and Transportation of Rails, PSC BG Sleepers, PSC Turnout Sleepers, other PSC Spl Sleepers, other P. Way Fittings and Materials etc. with including all Lead, Lifts and Stacking at various locations and in Station Yards from Km. 88.0 to 176.0 in connection with Doubling Project of NBQ-GLPT-KYQ (two packet tender). It is projected that the petitioner No. 1 was the lead partner of the joint-venture with 51% share while the other joint-venture partner had 49% share. For reasons sought to be justified by the petitioners, the said joint-venture could not deposit the performance guarantee in time, as such, by a letter dated 20.12.2018, the Chief Engineer/Con/IX, N.F. Railway terminated the contract arising out of the hereinbefore mentioned tender and by forfeited the EMD i.e. Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 17.00 lakh was forfeited and the said joint-venture was barred from participating in the re-tender of the said work. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 had participated in another tender process of the FCI bearing NIT dated 29.05.2019 and came out as a successful bidder. However, the said tender process was challenged by filing WP(C) No. 5094/2019 and ultimately in view of the challenge, the respondent No. 1 withdrew the contract which is reflected in the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The petitioners project that the adverse effect of the termination of contract by the N.F. Railway became known to the petitioner for the first time after filing of WP (C) No. 5094/2019. Thereafter, on the ground that the N.F. Railway authorities had not followed clause 36 of the Tender Conditions before terminating the contract and forfeiting EMD, after service of notice, the petitioner No. 1 took recourse to law by filing an application under secti