The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 18.09.2017 along with e-procurement notification dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure-6 series), whereby the tender for the work of widening 2-Lane with paved shoulder and geometric improvements of NH-114A from Km 184 to Km 216 under NH Division, Dhanbad in respect of Tender Reference No. NH/DHANBAD/2017-18/EPC-03 dated 24.05.2017 has been cancelled, purportedly as per the decision of the State Evaluation Committee. Further prayer has been made for quashing the fresh e-procurement tender notice published for the same work vide Tender Reference no.NH/DHANBAD/2017-18/EPC-08 dated 26.09.2017.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, is that one Notice Inviting Bid No.NH/DHANBAD/2017-18/EPC-03 dated 24.05.2017 was invited with respect to the work of widening 2-Lane with paved shoulder and geometric improvements of NH-114A from km 184 to km 216 under NH Division Dhanbad. The petitioner-company participated in the e-tender. The result of the technical bid was uploaded in the website vide Executive Engineer Prapatra No.5B dated 11.08.2017, whereby total six tenders including the petitioner were found responsive. Thereafter the Financial Bid was opened and the result was uploaded on Govt. e-Procurement System on 04.09.2017 along with Tender Summary Report as well as Financial Summary Report, declaring the petitioner as L1 having quoted minimum price. However, the respondents vide e-Procurement Notification dated 20.09.2017 bearing notice dated 18.09.2017 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, NH Division, cancelled the whole tender process. Thereafter the respondents issued a fresh tender through e-Procurement system vide Tender Reference no. NH-DHANBAD/2017-18-EPC-08 for the same work which gives rise to filing of present writ petition.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice of cancellation of the tender process has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that after following due procedure and on evaluation of technical and financial bid, the petitioner has been declared L1 and thus it cannot be subjected to such a prejudicial action by the respondents entailing serious adverse consequence in the nature of loss of business and opportunity to perform in aid of its due credentials. The impugned decision of cancellation of tender in question after publication of its result, has been taken totally on collateral ground of conviction of two Directors of the company, namely, Rakesh Ranjan Yadav and Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav vide judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.08.2017 in S.T No. 292 of 2016 (S.J) and 57/2017. It is also submitted that the said Directors have already been removed from their position vide Board of Directors’ decision dated 01.09.2017 and the said decision has been uploaded on the website of the Registrar of Companies. None of the provisions of the Companies Act or the Contract Act provides that merely because one or the other Director of the company has been disqualified as being the Director, the Company by itself shall be rendered disqualified to execute one or the other work. It is further submitted that Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of the Integrity Pact executed between the parties clearly show that the same pertains to Bidder/Contractor and not the Director which further stands qualified from the definition of the Bidder/Contractor as mentioned in the opening part of the Agreement/Integrity pact itself.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument puts reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2007)8 SCC 1; and

(ii) State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. Syndicate Transport Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1964)2 Cr.L.J. 276: AIR 1964 Bombay 195.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for th