Eligibility criteria for tender participation require joint ventures to meet combined and individual bid capacities proportional to participation shares.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is aggrieved by the rejection of the tender submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P4. In response to Ext.P1 notification submitted by the 1^st respondent inviting tender for the construction of building for ‘Development of General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram’, the petitioner submitted a tender. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has all the requisite qualifications as contemplated in the tender notification.

2. However, as per Ext.P4 communication issued by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner was found to be not qualified, in view of the fact that, the bid submitted by the petitioner as a joint venture did not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the tender notification. According to the 1^st respondent, the petitioner, being the lead member of the joint venture, failed to secure the minimum bid capacity as necessitated in the terms and conditions of the Ext.P1. This writ petition is filed, challenging the order of rejection of tender. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition are as follows:-

i. declare that the joint venture of petitioner is having bid capacity qualification as mentioned in clause 2.4 (e) of Ext.P1.

ii. call for records leading to Ext.P4 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P4.

iii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner’s tender submitted pursuant to Ext.P1 as technically qualified and proceed with the confirmation of tender process permitting the petitioner’s joint venture also in the tender process.

iv. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

v. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.

vi. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions by placing reliance upon the terms and conditions in the agreement and pointed out that, what is contemplated as the minimum required bid capacity for the lead member is 50% thereof and the petitioner is having the minimum capacity of Rs.82.70 Crores. It was pointed out that, the total bid capacity required was 111.49 crores and therefore, the petitioner had satisfied the criteria.

5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, the bid capacity of each member in the joint venture has to be in proportion to its participation share in the joint venture agreement and in this case, the participation share of the petitioner is 75% and therefore, the petitioner must have the bid capacity equivalent to 75% of the total amount involved. Thus the requirement would come to Rs.83.61 crores, whereas the capacity of petitioner would come to Rs. 82.70 crores.

6. After considering the relevant clauses in the bid documents, I find merits in the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent. Clause 2.4(e) of Ext.P1 which reads as follows:-

e) Bid Capacity: The Bidder who inter alia meet the minimum qualification criteria will be qualified only if their available Bid Capacity is more than the Total Tendered Value. The available Bid Capacity will be calculated as outlined in the Bid Format for Bid Capacity, based on the information provided. In case of a Joint Venture, the Lead Member shall meet minimum 50% requirement of bid capacity stated in this clause. Each of the other Members shall individually meet the minimum 25% requirement as per the bid capacity stated in this clause. The Bid Capacity of ea