Point of Law: Pre-bid meetings were held and suggestions were received for relaxing certain criterion including those put forth on behalf of appellants and their consortium partner.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

The instant intra Court writ appeal is directed against the judgment/final order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Single Bench in WP(C) No.2871/2022 along with I.A.(Civil) No.1628/2022.

2. The writ petitioners/appellants herein filed the aforesaid writ petition being aggrieved of the cancellation of its bid and acceptance of the bid of the respondent No.6 including the work order granted in favour of the respondent No.6 pursuant to the NIT dated 26.03.2021 issued by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 inviting bids from eligible persons/entities for erection/installation of ODC/OWC including Multimodal Transportation from Haldia Port/Kolkata Port to the sites specified in the NIT.

3. The appellants have questioned the legality of the order dated 22.12.2022 rejecting the writ petition wherein, challenge was laid to the declaration of the respondent No.6 as the successful bidder and rejection of the consortium bid offered by the appellants/writ petitioners and the proforma respondent No.7 for the said work on the grounds that, the bid offered by the appellants/writ petitioners was the lowest; that the respondents, tinkered with the technical criterion of the bidder qualification requirement just in order to favour the respondent No.6.

4. The learned Single Bench non-suited the appellants/writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the appellants/writ petitioners had filed a bid in consortium with the proforma respondent No.7 but the said consortium partner did not join the writ petitioners/appellants herein as a petitioner in the writ petition. Despite the opportunity given by the Court, the respondent No.7 was not transposed as a petitioner; that the writ petitioners along with the proforma respondent No.7 could only have been regarded as a bidder and hence, individually the writ petitioners could not be termed to be persons aggrieved so as to maintain the writ petition.

5. Mr. Indraneel Choudhury, learned Senior counsel representing the appellants/writ petitioners, vehemently and fervently contended that the learned Single Judge, virtually accepted all the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners on merits of the case but while concluding the matter on the aspect of maintainability, the judgment of this Court in the case of Merolyn Engineering Works(P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2022) 1 GLR 715 was applied so as to non-suit the appellants/writ petitioners whereas, the said judgment is not applicable to the controversy at the hand because in that case, the bid was filed in joint venture as against the bid, in the present case, which was as a consortium. Mr. Choudhury further urged that the appellants’ case on merits that the procuring entity, tweaked and modified the conditions of the original bid so as to suit the cause of the respondent No.6, was virtually accepted by the learned Single Bench and hence, it was his contention that it is a fit case, wherein the writ appellants should not be non-suited merely on technicality and the case should be decided on merits.

6. Mr. Choudhury urged that at para No.37 of the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2022, the learned Single Judge held that the bid submitted by the petitioner No.1 and the proforma respondent No.7 as a consortium was not a bid as a joint venture and rather, it was merely a bid as a consortium of bidders. As per Mr. Choudhury, having held so, the learned Single Judge was totally unjustified in rejecting the writ petition by applying the ratio of a judgment dealing with a case of joint venture bid. He, thus, urged that the writ appeal deserves to be allowed by holding that the appellants/writ petitioners are entitled to file the writ petition in their individual capacities and thereafter, to direct the learned Single Bench to decide the matter on merits by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2022. His alternative submission was that while deciding the issue of locus standi o