The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of authorities in awarding contracts, limited judicial review in contractual matters, and the importance of public interest in such cases.

1. The petitioner wanted the High Court to exercise the power of judicial review in respect of a global contract floated by Neyveli Lignite Corporation worth Rs.5900 Crores in a piecemeal manner during the currency of Tender Evaluation Process and before finalising the composite tender and award of contract.

Brief facts :

The case of the petitioner:

2. The petitioner is a leading business house in the domains of Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC), Power, Solar, Natural resources and infrastructure in India. The petitioner is also engaged in the construction of Metro Rail.

3. M/s.Neyeveli Lignite Corporation [hereinafter referred to as NLC], issued a notification calling for bids for steam generator and auxiliary package for its new thermal power project. The notification dated 24 September 2012 was published on 25 September 2012. The petitioner, pursuant to the said notification, submitted its technical and commercial bids on 10 December 2012. The technical bids were opened on 21 December 2012. There were three bidders : the petitioner, M/s.Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd, India and M/s.Ansaldo Caldaie S.p.a. Italy. Since the scope of the work and technical requirements of the tender were complex in nature requiring design and integration of multiple and complex components and systems, NLC allowed the petitioner and other bidders to take technological and commercial deviations. The bidders were permitted to submit necessary documents to justify the deviation. NLC by its letter dated 19 April 2013, sought certain clarifications on deviation suggested by the petitioner. NLC called upon the petitioner and its associates M/s.Harbin Boiler Company (hereinafter referred to as HBC), for a meeting on 2 May 213 at Neyveli to discuss technical and commercial deviations. The petitioner and its associate attended the meeting. HBC provided support to the petitioner for resolution of technical deviations. The petitioner submitted all the necessary information pursuant to the communication sent by NLC. In the meantime, the petitioner was directed to extend the bid validity up to 17 November 2013. The petitioner readily complied with the said direction. However, there was no follow up action taken by NLC to call upon the petitioner to submit its revised price bid. In the meantime, the petitioner was informed that NLC has invited the other two bidders for submission of their revised price bid, which would be opened on 30 August 2013. According to the petitioner, they have complied with all the requirements as indicated in the communications sent by NLC. NLC was bound to invite the petitioner for submitting revised price bid. The petitioner therefore seeks a writ of mandamus to forbear NLC from proceeding further with the bidding process, by opening the price bids on 30 August 2013 without considering the clarifications submitted on various occasions in relation to tender No. CO /CONTS/ 0014T/ NNTPP/ NTA1-SG/2012 dated 24 September 2012.

Case of NLC:

4. The Chief General Manager, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the claim made by the petitioner. According to NLC, the petitioner has been delaying the matter under one pretext or the other. The petitioner wanted extension of time by two months even to submit the bid pursuant to the notification issued by NLC. The petitioner was asked to give certain clarifications with regard to technical specification on or before 2 May 2013. The petitioner furnished a reply dated 4 May 2013 with regard to certain items and undertook to give further reply at a later point of time. Since NLC wanted to complete tender process as early as possible, the petitioner was invited to participate in the techno-commercial discussion from 13 to 15 May 2013. During the said meeting, the petitioner withdrew certain deviations taken by it in Part-1 of the bid. Certain other deviations were either accepted or resolved. Other major deviations remained and in some