The interpretation of eligibility criteria in public tenders is best determined by the tendering authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or mala fides.

JUDGMENT :

(Kardak Ete, J.) :

Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State respondent Nos.1—6 and Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos.7.

2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the Office Order dated 15.01.2024, whereby Technical Bid of the petitioner has been rejected as non-responsive and bids of the respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 & 10 have been accepted as substantially responsive for construction of Double Lane Road from Donyi Polo Airport, Itanagar to Naharlagun Railway Station via Sonajuli and Durpang with an estimated cost of Rs. 317.00 Crores, pursuant to the RFP No. ND/EPC/2023-24, dated 16.10.2023. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to re-evaluate the Technical Bid of the petitioner for Financial Bid.

3. The facts of the case giving rise to filing of the instant Writ Petition are that the Executive Engineer, PWD, Naharlagun Division (respondent No.5) issued RFP No. ND/EPC/2023-24, dated 16.10.2023, inviting bids for construction of Double Lane Road to provide airport connectivity from Donyi Polo Airport, Itanagar to Naharlagun Railway Station via Sonajuli and Durpang with an estimated cost of Rs. 317.00 Crores. It was a Two Bid system, whereby only the bidders whose Technical Bids are found to be technically responsive would be permitted to submit their Financial Bid. The RFP stipulates completion period of 30 months. The last date of submission of the bid was 15.11.2023.

4. In response to the RFP dated 16.10.2023, the petitioner along with 13 other bidders had submitted their Technical Bids. On technical bid evaluation, vide impugned Office Order dated 15.01.2024 the Respondent No.5 declared four (4) bidders namely, 1. M/s. Tanor Engineering, 2. M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd., 3. M/s. T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd and 4. M/s. Kenge Construction Co., as responsive on the basis of the evaluation done by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). The Technical Evaluation Committee found the bid of the petitioner non-responsive on the ground of "Turnover below minimum qualifying criteria". To be more specific, the Technical Bid of the petitioner was declared to be technically non-responsive, vide impugned order dated 15.01.2024, on the ground of non-fulfillment of the criteria laid down in Clause 1.7.4 of the bid RFP, pertaining to the annual average turnover. Thereafter, upon considering the financial bid of the eligible bidders, the contract in question has been awarded in favour of the respondent No.7.

5. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner participated in the tender process initiated by vide RFP dated 16.10.2023. The financial bid is to be invited only from the bidders who are found responsive in the technical bid. The petitioner participated along with 13 others. Vide Office Order dated 15.01.2024 the respondent authority declared four (4) bidders namely, (1) M/s. Kenge Construction, (2) M/s. Tanor Engineering, (3) M/s. T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd and (4) M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd., as responsive on the basis of the evaluation done by the Technical Evaluation Committee, however, the TEC found the bid of the petitioner non-responsive on the ground of "Turnover below minimum qualifying criteria".

6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that on 23.01.2024, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2024 and the decision of the TEC, rejecting the bid of the Petitioner as non-responsive and accepting the Bid of the aforesaid four bidders as responsive with further prayer for re-evaluating the bid of the petitioner for financial bids. Aforesaid 4 bidders were made party respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 & 10. The respondent No.7 filed its Affidavit-in-o