Judicial review in public procurement is limited to ensuring the decision-making process is not arbitrary. A company's eligibility remains intact despite corporate restructuring, and the procuring authority maintains discretion to evaluate technical feasibility and bid workability without judicial interference, absent procedural impropriety.

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Techno-Commercial Evaluation Summary dated 06.08.2024 and the Bid Evaluation Summary dated 08.08.2024, whereby Respondent No.4 has been declared technically qualified and the L1 bidder in respect of Tender No. 203168C/T/CT/PACKAGE-1 floated by Respondent No.2. The Petitioner further seeks directions to declare Respondent No.4 ineligible for participation in the tender process, a restraint against award of the contract in its favour, and a consequential direction to award the subject tender to the Petitioner.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the decision of Respondent No.2 in declaring Respondent No.4 as technically qualified and the L1 bidder, is liable to be interfered with, on the ground that Respondent No.4 allegedly does not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed under the tender document, particularly in view of the change in its shareholding and the asserted lack of access to the technical know-how and experience of the erstwhile Hamon Group, and, if so, the effect of the admitted position that a substantial portion of the work under the contract, stated to be approximately 80%, has already been executed.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. Respondent No.2 issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 09.01.2024 for execution of the “EPCC Package for Cooling Tower Works (Phase-I and Phase-II) along with associated facilities for Poly Butadiene Rubber Plant Project” at its Panipat Refinery and Petrochemical Complex. The bidding process was undertaken through an open tender on a single-stage two-bid system, comprising a techno-commercial (unpriced) bid and a financial bid. Respondent No.3 was engaged as the technical consultant for the purposes of evaluation of bids submitted in response to the said tender.

5. The Petitioner claims to be a company engaged in the field of design, engineering and construction of cooling towers and asserts that it possesses extensive experience in execution of projects in the power, refinery and industrial sectors, having executed a large number of projects for public sector undertakings as well as private entities.

6. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Respondent No.2, Indian Oil Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘IOCL’], is the owner of the project in question and the authority which invited and evaluated the bids. Respondent No. 3 was engaged by Respondent No.2 as a technical consultant for the purposes of evaluation of bids. Respondent No.4 is one of the bidders in the subject tender and has been declared technically qualified and the L1 bidder.

7. The subject matter of the tender pertains to execution of cooling tower works. It is not in dispute that cooling towers constitute an important component in industrial processes and require specialised design and engineering. The Petitioner has emphasised that such works involve techni