The rejection of a bid in a Tender process must be based on valid and reasonable grounds, and should not overlook the principles of transparency and fairness. The interpretation of Tender clauses should be in accordance with the relevant statutes and the object sought to be achieved by such clauses.

JUDGMENT :

1. The extraordinary powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being sought to be invoked by means of filing this writ petition. The petitioners have put to challenge the action of the respondents-Railways in rejecting the Techno-Commercial bid of the petitioner no. 1 in connection with a Tender process initiated vide NIT dated 13.10.2022. The petitioners alleged that such rejection has been done in a most mechanical manner and without any application of mind which has caused immense legal prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners further state that in a similar Tender, the petitioner no. 1, who had submitted the bid, was declared to be technically responsive. The petitioners have, accordingly prayed for interference by this court with the impugned action of the respondent authorities.

2. Before going to the issue which would require an adjudication, the facts of the case may be put in brief as follows.

3. The petitioner no. 1 is a Joint Venture of M/S Royal Infraconstru Ltd. and M/S BN Infraprojects LLP. The Joint Venture as well as the constituents of the same and the partners of the LLP are all arrayed as petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.10.2022, the Railways had published an NIT for the work, namely, “Construction of substructure & superstructure of Br. No. 184/A-1 of span 1x62.0m Bow String Girder + via duct 2x24.0m Composite Girder (ROB) at Chainage 162.562 Km (Over State Highways) between station Gauripur-Alamganj in connection with New Maynaguri-Jogighopa new B.G. Line Project of NF Railway”. The Tender process was a two bid one - Financial and Technical. The problem which had arisen concerns Annexure-V of the Tender Document. As per the footnote of the said Annexure-V, it has been stated that the Certificate was to be given by each member of the JV or partners of the partnership firm/LLP/ etc. It is the case of the petitioners that since the petitioner no. 1, which had submitted the bid, is a Joint Venture, the said certificate was given by both the members of the Joint Venture. As regards the constituent of the Joint Venture, namely, M/S Infraprojects LLP, Shri Babul, Nath had signed the said certificate. It is on this reason/ground that the Techno-Commercial bid of the petitioner no.1 has been rejected.

4. On the other hand, as per the version of the respondents-Railways, the rejection has been done in terms of the conditions of the NIT and there is no legal infirmity.

5. I have heard Shri M Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri K Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the Railways.

6. The materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

7. Shri Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines and conditions to be fulfilled in case, the bidder is a Joint Venture. Under Clause 1.11, ‘authorized member’ has been explained to mean that the Joint Venture members in the JV MoU shall authorise one of the members on behalf of the Joint Venture to deal with the Tender etc. It has further been stipulated that all notices/correspondences with respect to the contract would be sent only to this authorized member of the JV.

8. Reference has also been made to Clause 1.14.4 which stipulates a case where one or more members of the Joint Venture is/are LLP firms. Amongst others, under sub-clause (iv), a copy of the authorization/copy of Power of Attorney issued by the LLP firm which is to be supported by a resolution passed by the partners in favour of the individual to sign the Tender and/or signed the MoU/Joint Venture agreement on behalf of the LLP and create liability against the LLP are required to be submitted. There is also a requirement under sub-clause (v) of submitting an Undertaking by all partners of the LLP that they are not blacklisted by the Railways or any other Ministry of the Department of the Government of India. It is the case of the petitioner that such declaration ha