JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

1. The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the selection of Opposite Party No. 3, pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15.09.2021 under Annexure-2 and the decision/opinion of Independent External Monitor (IEM) dated 24.02.2022 under Annexure-6, so also the Letter of Intent received by Opposite Party No. 3 dated 09.05.2022. The Petitioners have further prayed to direct Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to finalize the tender process, pursuant to the NIT dated 15.09.2021 under Annexure-2, by evaluating the Financial Bid of Petitioner No. 1-Consortium as per the NIT, within a stipulated period.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Opposite Party No. 2-Thyssen Krupp Industrial Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of National Aluminium Company Limited (NACLO), invited bid from the eligible Bidders for the work “Mud Settling, Washing and Associated Facilitates Package Stream 5 of Alumina Refinery at Damanjodi (Bidding Document No. 6695-CMGG00-CA-0042)” vide NIT dated 15.09.2021. As per the NIT, the Bidders were to submit their bids only in hard copy to the Consultant-O.P. No. 2 and no bid was to be uploaded in any web portal. The due date for submission of the bid, which was originally fixed to 13.10.2021, was extended to 10.11.2021, and the date of bid opening was extended to 11.11.2021, by issuance of corrigendum/addendum by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2.

2.1 Petitioner No. 1, which is the consortium of two Private Limited Companies, viz. M/s. Thermopads Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner No. 2 and M/s. Thermosystems Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner No. 3, was formed for the purpose of participating in the tender process. Petitioner No. 1- Consortium, along with two other Bidders, including Opposite Party No. 3-M/s. Tuaman Engineering Ltd., submitted their bids pursuant to the NIT dated 15.09.2021 and participated in the bidding process. The bids of Petitioner No. 1-Consortium and Opposite Party No. 3 were technically qualified. Clause-4.0 (A) of the NIT stipulates the minimum technical experience criteria which must be fulfilled by the Bidders in order to qualify for the work. The tender process was conducted in offline mode, in which Petitioner No. 1-Consortium and Opposite Party No. 3 were technically qualified. But Petitioner No. 1-Consortium came to know that Opposite Party No. 3 in support of its technical experience, as provided in Clause-4.0 (A) of the NIT, had furnished one completion certificate dated 06.11.2013 issued by M/s Himadri Chemicals and Industries Limited (now M/s Himadri Specialty Chemical Limited). The said completion certificate refers to one Purchase Order dated 21.07.2011 issued by M/s Himadri Chemicals and Industries Limited to Opposite Party No. 3. Therefore, Petitioner No. 1-Consortium raised objection to such completion certificate furnished by Opposite Party No. 3 and submitted a letter on 20.12.2021 to Opposite Party No. 1-NALCO contending therein that such completion certificate furnished by Opposite Party No. 3 ought not have been entertained in satisfaction of the eligibility criteria, as the said certificate was issued by one of its Group Company, namely, M/s Himadri Chemicals and Industries Limited (now M/s Himadri Specialty Chemical Limited).

2.2 Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, the Tendering Authority, instead of taking a decision on the specific complaint made by Petitioner No. 1-Consortium, went ahead with the tender process and opened the Financial Bid on 13.04.2022, in which Opposite Party No. 3 was declared as successful Bidder. Consequently, a Letter of Intent was issued in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 on 09.05.2022. Therefore, Petitioner No. 1-Consortium approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 11855 of 2022 highlighting the illegal and arbitrary manner of evaluation of tender by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and sitting over the complaint of the Petitioner No. 1-Consortium. During course of the hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the Te