RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letters contained in email communications dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and dated 01.11.2017 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) whereby, the respondents have rejected the offer of the petitioner, pursuant to NIT No. BSL/CP/GT/CAST ROLLS/2017-19. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the bid auction to be held pursuant to the aforesaid NIT, as it is a global tender and the petitioner fulfils all the eligibility criteria for the said tender.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an authorized representative of M/S Changzhou Kaida Heavy Industry Technology Co. Ltd. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (in short SAIL) floated a global tender being NIT No. BSL/CP/GT/CAST ROLLS/2017-19 in which M/S Changzhou Kaida Heavy Industry Technology Co. Ltd. participated through the petitioner. The said tender was for procurement of cast rolls to be used by different units of the SAIL. The petitioner submitted its tender on 20.07.2017 i.e. the last date of the opening of the tender. The petitioner preferred that 100% Letter of Credit will be used in order to complete the deal, provided 5% Bank guarantee is given by the supplier. The concept of Letters of Credit is that since there use to be different laws in different countries, the Banks are usually made party in the deal so that in the event, if the buyer backs out from the deal then the Bank will indemnify the supplier/seller for the loss incurred by the seller. Subsequently, the Bank procures the incurred loss from the buyer. On 06.09.2017, an email was sent to the petitioner by the respondents seeking clarification/confirmation with regard to the technical and commercial points and the eligibility criteria informing, inter alia, to clarify/confirm and submit the documents immediately by 13.09.2017 positively, failing which the offer of the petitioner was to be evaluated on the basis of the submitted documents and the respondent-SAIL was to decide the offer accordingly without any further reference to the petitioner. Vide email dated 08.09.2017, the petitioner was again sought the same clarification by the respondent-SAIL, which was replied by the petitioner vide its email dated 11.09.2017. It is further submitted that the main dispute is with regard to the payment terms mentioned in Clause 4.1.1 of the tender/bid documents. Clause 4.1.1 of the aforesaid tender documents stipulates that 95% of the value of materials was to be paid to the supplier at the time of making supply and 5% payment was to be made by the respondent-SAIL after completion of the Guarantee terms successfully. The petitioner had made payment offer that 95% of payment against the Letter of Credit was to be made at the sight and 5% payment was to be made by submitting performance Bank guarantee with validity of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner while clarifying the said payment offer made by the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was to be paid 100% of the supply value at the time of making the supply, however, 5% performance Bank guarantee was to be deposited by the petitioner, subject to successful completion of the Guarantee terms for the contract period. It is further submitted that there was no material difference between the payment terms mentioned in Clause 4.1.1 of the bid documents and the payment offer made by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it had duly clarified the payment offer made by it to the respondent-SAIL and it was waiting for further communication, however, without communicating the subsequent events which took place in the tender evaluation, the respondent-SAIL finally communicated through email on 31.10.2017 that the petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions of the bid documents. Further, on 01.11.2017, it was informed that th