IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and the importance of fair play in the decision-making process. It highlights the freedom of the respondents to award contracts and the need for commercial considerations in evaluating tenders.

JUDGMENT :

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.

1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shishir Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Raghav Dev Garg, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

Facts:-

2. The facts of the case as emerging out from the record are that the petitioner herein is a company engaged in business of Operation and Maintenance Services (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as ‘O&M Services’) for Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utapadan Nigam Ltd. including O&M Services and Coal Handling Plants. The respondent no.1 floated a tender sometimes in June 2020 for execution of O&M Services for its Coal Handling Plants at Paricha Station for a period of two years. The petitioner, who participated in the bid, was found suitable and contract was awarded to it. It was at that point of time, when one of the unsuccessful bidder alleged that petitioner had been debarred by another State owned power generating company in Madhya Pradesh, hence the petitioner was not qualified to be awarded the contract, as such, response was asked from the petitioner. Vide letter dated 15. 10.2020, the petitioner clarified that the allegations against it were incorrect and were raised only to disqualify the petitioner. The tender proceeding culminated into a contract dated 15.03.2021.

3. The respondent no.2 again floated a tender for the period commencing from 01.03.2023. For some reason this tender could not be finalized and the existing contract of the petitioner was extended till 31.03.2023, for a period of one month. Thereafter a fresh tender was floated on 22.03.2023, which had two bid mode of technical and financial bids. The petitioner alongwith other bidders participated in the tender proceeding and technical bid were opened on 6. 04.2023. The petitioner alongwith respondent no.4 and few others were found technically qualified. Since the tender proceedings could not be culminated for some reasons, hence the existing tender of the petitioner, which was coming to an end on 31.03.2023, was again extended upto 31.05.2023.

4. The financial bid of bidders, who qualified in the technical bid, were opened and the bid of petitioner was found to be the lowest (L1). It is claimed that despite the petitioner being L1, the tender was not awarded to the petitioner. When the petitioner met the officials of respondent no.1, he came to know that the respondent no.4 has filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had filed a false affidavit regarding blacklisting/debarment/termination of the contract. It was alleged that earlier the petitioner had been debarred by one of the State owned company in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner submitted that no communication has been made by the respondent no.1 qua the said complaint and he came to know that the respondent no.1 was about to award contract to respondent no.4. Such situation impelled the petitioner to prefer the earlier Writ C No.6515/2023 (Energo Construction Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi vs. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.) before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 02.08.2023 with liberty to file fresh petition before appropriate Bench/Court as the matter pertains to district Jhansi. Meanwhile, the respondent no.1 has issued LOI in favour of respondent no.4 on 28. 07.2023. Aggrieved by the award of LOI to respondent no.4, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition with following reliefs:-

(i) Issue an appropriate writ or direction or order in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the Letter of Intent dated 28.07.2023 bearing Ref. No.441/CHD-IV/PTPP/ 2023-24/CF issued by respondent nos.1 to 3 in favour of respondent no.4 (Annexure-2).

(ii) Issue an approriate writ or direction or order in the nature of mandamus thereby seeking appropriate direction