JUDGMENT :

Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, J.

(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 7.3.2024 made in W.P.No.3907 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge.)

1. Assailing the judgment and order dated 7.3.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3907 of 2024, the respondents in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal.

2.1. Succinctly put, the facts are as under: The appellants floated a tender against Specification No.CE/IT&RAPDRP.06 to 11/2023-24 (6 packages) towards Development of Distribution Infrastructure for Loss Reduction in various districts in Tamil Nadu under the Revamped Reforms-based and Results-linked, Distribution Sector Scheme through Open Tender Two-Part System.

2.2. The original writ petitioner/first respondent herein participated in the tender process. The technical bid of the first respondent was rejected by the appellants for the reason that Bid Qualification Requirements (BQR) are not satisfied. The first respondent filed W.P.No.33809 of 2023 along with five other writ petitions assailing the order rejecting its technical bid. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 7.12.2023, directed the first respondent to avail the alternate remedy before the Government.

2.3. The first respondent, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 before the second respondent. The second respondent, vide order 13.2.2024, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said order, the first respondent filed W.P.No.3907 of 2024.

2.4. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order dated 7.3.2024, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order disqualifying the first respondent and directed the appellants to declare the first respondent as a technically qualified bidder and include the bid of the first respondent for the next stage of financial evaluation. Impugning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the TANGEDCO.

3. The technical bid of the original writ petitioner is rejected on two counts:

(i) the first respondent does not qualify Clauses 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 of the Bid Qualification Requirements (BQR), i.e., does not possess the experience of executing contracts in the seven-year period preceding the financial year of issue of tender; and

(ii) the first respondent does not possess the electrical contractor licence issued by any one State in India as required under Clause 3.8.6. of the BQR.

4.1. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that on both the counts the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the BQR in its correct perspective. The tender notice was issued on 25.6.2023. The seven years preceding the final year would be the year 2016-2017. The first respondent's contract to suggest experience is of the year 2015. The same is not within seven years.

4.2. Learned Advocate General further submitted that Clause 3.8.6 of the BQR is mandatory. As per the said clause, the bidder should meet the necessary license class requirements as applicable for the execution of works in the Requests for Bids (RFB). It is only if the bidder does not hold the license for the given State, then the bidder should possess the equivalent license for any one State in India and post-award the bidder is required to acquire the necessary license for the given State within a period of two months. In case the bid is submitted by a joint venture, all partners whose scope as per the delineation of responsibilities amongst JV partners includes execution of works or part thereof at site, should possess and/or acquire the necessary license as stated above. In the instant case, according to learned Advocate General, though it was a joint venture, the other joint venture partners were not supposed to do any work as per their joint venture agreement and, as such, it was incumbent upon the first respondent to possess the necessary license and the first respondent did not possess the license.

4.