H. L. Dattu, C. J.

1. The primary question involved in this Writ Appeal is whether the respondents action in rejecting the tender document submitted by the Appellant for construction of the International Deepwater Seaport and Container transshipment terminal at Vizhinjam, Kerala" is justified or not?

2. The appellant had approached this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15570 of 2008. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 03/07/2008 has dismissed the writ petition. That judgment is under challenge in this appeal. RELEVANT FACTS:

3. To appreciate the contentions raised in this proceedings, it is appropriate to set out the facts as stated in the memorandum of Writ Petition, counter affidavits and other documents submitted before the Court.

Pleadings in the memorandum of Writ Petition:

4. The leaverments in the memorandum of Writ Petition is that as per Ext. P1, the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent, invited "Request for Proposal" (RFP) to develop a "˜Deepwater Seaport and Container Transshipment Terminal at Vizhinjam, Kerala (the Project). Qualification Criteria for prospective bidders is submitted as Ext. P2. Date for submission of bid was fixed as 31/01/2008 by Ext. P3. The RFP issued to the petitioner is produced as Ext. P4, wherein the details of the project and procedure for bidding are detailed. The RFP submitted by the petitioners consortium is produced as Ext. P5, wherein it is stated that said Consortiums lead member is Zoom Developers, and its members are Portia Management Services and Peter Frankel and Partners. Ext. P6 is the statement of qualification submitted by the petitioner and Ext. P7 is its technical proposal. Including the petitioner, five Consortium submitted RFP before the due date and time. Lead members of the other Consortium are:

1. Apollo Enterprises Ltd., Isle of Man, UK

2. Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd, Hydrabad, India

3. Videocon Industries Ltd. Mumbai, India and

4. Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd., Hydrabad, India.

5. The 3rd respondent - Advisor to Respondents 1 and 2, on 03/03/2008 issued Ext. P9 letter to the petitioner with reference to the bid, inter alia pointing out, that,

i. The power of attorney for nomination of Lead Members needs to be stamped in accordance with law;

ii. In the Consortium Agreement, the signatures of Mr. Peter Martin of Peter Frankel and Partners and Mr. Minoo Pardiwala of Zoom Developers have not been notarized;

iii. The Consortium Agreement needs to be stamped in accordance with law;

iv. It needs to be mentioned more expressly in the consortium Agreement that the Lead Member shall hold a minimum equity of 26% in the SPC;

v. Portia Management Services has singed Consortium Agreement on behalf of Peel Ports Limited, but Peel Ports Limited is not a Member of Consortium;

vi. Necessary documentations from the various consortium Members authorizing the signatories of the different documents have not been submitted along with the Bid. Petitioner was also requested therein to submit the Annual Reports of all the three parties of the consortium i.e.; of Zoom Developers, Portia Management Services (its own) and Peter Frankel & Partners.

They are further requested therein to collect the original documents for taking necessary action to meet the above requirements and also requested to resubmit the necessary documents with ten days.

6. The petitioner, vide Ext. P10, sought extension of time till 24/03/2008 for complying with Ext. P9 and also sought time to execute a "˜fresh agreement".

7. The petitioner vide Exts. P11, P12, P12(a), P12(b), P13 and P14, responded to 3rd respondent with reference to Ext. P9 and furnished some details / documents. As evident from Ext. P15, the 3rd respondent again asked the petitioner to get the old Power of Attorney and the Consortium Agreement stamped in accordance with law. To comply this, they sought time till 04/04/2008. Vide Ext. P16 and vide Ext. P17, time was granted as a last chance. Petitioner swiftly acted in terms with Ext. P15 as