ORDER

Shukla, J.-- 1. Regard being had to the facts of the case and the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts enumerated in WP-11371-2021 are taken note of.

2. Shorn or unnecessary details : The respondent No.1 Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation [for short, “the MPRDC”] invited tender for Consultancy of Independent Engineer for Operation & Maintenance (O & M) period on Completed Road Projects under BOT (Toll), BOT (Toll + Annuity) & BOT (Annuity) Mode for MPRDC for the State of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”) on 22.9.2020. Request for Proposal (for brevity “RFP) was issued by the respondents. The petitioner along with its lead partner – M/s K & J Projects Private Limited participated in the tender process and submitted its bid for the tender on 17.10.2020. The technical evaluation was declared on 25.1.2021 wherein the score of the petitioner was recorded to be 94.55 marks which is reflected in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 21.1.2021. The petitioner further submits that as per sub-clause (ii) of Clause 5.5 of the Data Sheet, the technical proposal of a bidder must secure a minimum of 75 marks to be considered for the financial evaluation. A reference is made to Clause 5.5 (iii) of the Data Sheet. A revaluation was conducted on 9.2.2021, however, there was no change in the scores obtained by the petitioner, which scored the highest marks and thus, qualified for opening of the financial bid. The petitioner has referred to the Minutes of the Meeting of the Bid Evaluation Committee, dated 9.2.2021. It is stated that as a result of the petitioner’s highest score, it was qualified for the financial bid, wherein the petitioner was also the lowest bidder in the whole tender process.

3. It is setforth that pursuant to the petitioner’s qualification for the technical and financial bid on 16.2.2021, a complaint was received by the respondent No.2 on 18.2.2021 against the petitioner regarding the documents submitted by it from Neeraj Nigam. On the basis of the complaint dated 18.2.2021, the respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 31.3.2021 to the petitioner seeking clarification with regard to the difference of period of engagement of Mr. Akhil Khare shown in his Curriculum Vitae [hereinafter referred to as “CV”] submitted by the lead partner in association with the petitioner in the present Project and in another CV submitted in a project of M/s URS Scott Wilson India Private Limited, in association with the petitioner are not matching with each other. The CV of Mr. Akhil Khare was submitted as per Appendix B-5 under section 4 Format for submission of Technical Proposal of the RFP, as also uploaded in the Infracon portal.

4. It is putforth that in the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 had also sought the same clarification from M/s URS Scott Wilson India Private Limited as to the differences in the contents of the CV of Mr. Akhil Khare on 6.3.2021. In consequence of the letter dated 6.3.2021 M/s URS Scott Wilson India Private Limited sought clarification from Mr. Akhil Khare and Mr. Akhil Khare also replied, vide letter dated 12.3.2021.

5. The petitioner vide its reply dated 7.4.2021 to the letter dated 31.3.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 informed that the CV of Mr. Akhil Khare which was submitted in the present Project by the petitioner was taken from the Infracon Portal of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India and the CV submitted in the earlier Project of M/s URS Project was submitted as per requirements of that Project. For the present Project, the CV was obtained from Infracon Portal, wherein the Key Personnel submitted the details in an elaborate format containing his employment records. It is relevant to note that section 3 of the RFP issued to M/s URS Scott Wilson India Private Limited project provides the qualific