JUDGMENT :

1. Imposition of conditions in a Notice Inviting Tender or the interpretation thereof are subject matters exclusively within the domain of the owner. Unless the aforesaid conditions are wholly opposed to public policy or are accentuated by malice so as to favour a vested interested party to the exclusion of other bidders, such conditions are not to be interfered with. That is the general interpretation of the law holding the field as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions starting from Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 and reiterated in the latest cases of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, Central Coal Fields Limited vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium & Ors.) reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622, Caretel Infotech Limited vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. reported in 2019 (6) SCALE 70 and Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2019) SCC Online 1133.

2. With that backdrop, the present issue is required to be examined. In fact a common issue has arisen in these three writ petitions which were taken up for an analogous hearing and being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. Before going to the issue involved which has called for adjudication, the brief facts of the cases may be noted in the following manner. The petitioners in all the three cases are the same. While the petitioner no. 1 is a limited liability partnership firm, the other petitioners are the partners of the same. The petitioner no. 1 had submitted its bid in response to certain NIT’s floated by the Railways involving three different works. However, the bid was rejected on the technical ground itself of not meeting the eligibility criteria. The petitioners contend that the rejection has been done by misinterpreting the tender conditions by holding the petitioner no. 1 to be ineligible for such bidding. The further case of the petitioners is that the price quoted by the petitioners is less than the price of the private respondent who was purported to be selected and therefore, the element of public interest also comes in.

4. As regards, the respondent no. 4 (private respondent), the Lawazima Court vide order dated 07.06.2022 has held that service is complete in spite of which the said respondent has chosen not to appear and contest the writ petition.

5. According to the petitioners, certain more facts would be necessary to bring home the case projected. The petitioner was earlier a sole proprietorship firm namely M/s Babul Nath and had carried out various construction works under the Railways for a long period of time. On 03.04.2017, an LLP agreement was executed between the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 and the same was incorporated on 09.04.2017. On 13.02.2020, the LLP was recognized by the Railways.

6. The issue on which the petitioner no. 1 has been held to be ineligible is mainly with regard to the past experience.

7. In these three writ petitions, three works are connected, the details of which are given below :

“(i) Earthwork in filling to form embankment including blanketing, construction of minor bridges (8 Nos.), RUB (11 Nos.), trolley refuges, drains, protection work, approach road, diversion road, toe wall and other ancillary works from field Ch. 50.60 Km to Ch. 58.50 Km between Kaliaganj and Bibiganj excluding Ch. 55.30 Km to 56.10 Km (Teragachh Halt) and approaches of major bridges (50m both sides) in connection with construction of new BG line from Arariya to Galgalia to N.F. Railway (Construction).

Tender value Rs.61089963.60/-

Completion period 15(Fifteen) months

(ii) Earthwork in filling to form embankment including blanketing, construction of minor bridges (10 Nos.), RUB (14 Nos.), trolley refuges, drain, protection work, approach road, diversion road, toe wall and other ancillary works from Ch. 39.10 Km to Ch. 49.60 Km between Bardha Halt and Kaliaganj Station excluding approaches o