The court affirmed that in tender matters, the awarding authority has discretion to assess qualifications, and judicial review is limited to ensuring legality and fairness, without substituting the authority's judgment.

ORDER :

Ananda Sen, J.

Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed to set aside the alleged arbitrary action of the respondents, as a result of which the petitioner’s technical bid was rejected. Petitioner has also prayed that the documents issued by “UPPCL” in relation to the experience of the petitioner should be considered and thereafter appropriate order be passed considering the petitioner to be technically qualified.

By way of an interlocutory application being I.A. No.6397 of 2022, petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent No.1 from giving effect to the terms and conditions as contained in LOI No.279 dated 23.06.2022; to issue Rule NISI in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the LOI No.279 dated 23.06.2022 issued in complete violation of Clause 41-45 of the NIT as also in violation of the notice of debriefing given dated 15.06.2022; to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to give effect to the terms and conditions of debriefing as contained in Clause 41-45 of the NIT.

2. Arguments of the counsel for the parties were concluded and upon conclusion of the same, the judgment in this case was reserved.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was duly experienced and otherwise eligible to participate in the tender floated by the respondents No.1 – Jharkhand Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (JBVNL) Petitioner had participated and had submitted its bid, but the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected as the certificate of experience issued by “UPPCL”, where the petitioner had worked as a member of the consortium, was not considered by the respondents, thus, making the petitioner ineligible. It is the contention of the petitioner that while considering the technical bid, points were allotted under different heads including that for work experience, but since the work experience of the petitioner while working for a project under “UPPCL” was not considered, no points were allotted to the petitioner, which led to illegal disqualification of the petitioner in the technical bid. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the required points would have been awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner would have qualified and would have been declared as technically qualified. He submits that once the petitioner becomes technically qualified, petitioner’s financial bid would have been opened, which would have resulted in work being allotted in favour of the petitioner as the financial bid of the petitioner is much lesser than the successful candidate, who has been allotted the work. He submitted that the entire process adopted by the respondent is arbitrary, malafide, and only to oust the petitioner from the competition and to favour some other bidder, illegality has been committed. He submitted that the respondents have ignored the fact that admittedly the petitioner was a lead partner in the contract issued by “UPPCL”, thus, the entire credit of the work should have been given to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-JBVNL submitted that in fact, after scrutinizing all the documents, petitioner’s technical bid was rejected. Though as claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner was a member of the consortium, which had undertaken the work under “UPPCL”, still inspite of repeated requests, petitioner did not furnish the desired document to suggest as to what was the role of the petitioner in the said work. He submitted that in fact the entire work was done by the other firm, which was the other member of the consortium and not by the petitioner. Since no documents were submitted by the petitioner, which could have satisfied the respondents, the alleged experience of the petitioner under “UPPCL” was not considered. He also submitted that in fact the other firm (respondent No.2), which was the other member of the consortium, in relation to the work under “UPPCL”, also participated in this contract. While consid