Jharkhand High Court
Clean Coal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs Central Coalfields Ltd on 17 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4859 of 2024
With
I.A. No.9378 of 2024
------
Clean Coal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (Lead Member of Consortium of
Clean Coal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Maa Durga Coal and Minerals Pvt.
Ltd., and Rama Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd.) having its registered office
at Commercial Building, Rama World, Tifra Parsada, Bilaspur, P.O.
and P.S. Bilaspur Industrial Estate, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
495 001, through its General Manager (Marketing) and Authorised
representative, Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, aged about 50 years, son
of Mr. Ram Gopal Soni, resident of Sankalp, behind Bachpan
School, Mahavir Nagar, P.O. and P.S. - Mahavir Nagar, District -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing
Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. - Court Post
Office, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001.
2. General Manager (Washery Construction), Central Coalfields Ltd.,
having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. - Court Post Office, P.S.
Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001.
3. Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
having its office at Surya Auto Campus, Dhansar, P.O. and P.S.
Dhansar, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand 828 016.
4. Barjora Mining Pvt. Ltd., through its President (Mining), having its
office at Circular Court, 9th Floor, 8, A.J.C. Bose Road, P.O. and
P.S.-A.J.C. Bose Road, District - Kolkata, West Bengal, 700 017.
.... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
------
03/Dated: 17.09.2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for seeking
amendment of the accompanying writ petition in view of rejection of
the technical bid of the petitioner informed vide email dated
29.08.2024.
2. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the prayer made in the instant application is formal in
nature, i.e., the communication of the rejection of the technical bid
and as such, the instant application has been filed for making the
same as a part of the writ petition, as also, for seeking a direction to
quash the same in addition to the prayer made in the writ petition.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-CCL has not objected to such prayer.
4. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.9378 of 2024 stands allowed.
Prayer
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/
direction or a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent CCL to declare the
Technical Bid of the Petitioner as technically
compliant and to accept the same for the purpose
of opening of the Price Bid in respect of the NIT
dated 2.3.2024 for setting up of New Sawang
Coking Coal washery plant at kithara Area of CCL
(Bokaro), on Build- Own-Operate basis (BOO),
especially considering the fact the NIT itself
stipulates that technical bids can be accepted if the
clarifications sought from the bidders does not
affect its eligibility status and further because the
clarifications sought from the Petitioner, though not
affecting its eligibility status, were also submitted
by the last date.
(ii) For the issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)
or direction(s) or order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case for doing conscionable
justice to the petitioner.
(iii) For the issuance of further appropriate
writ/order/direction or a writ in the nature of a
certiorari for quashing / setting aside the rejection
of the Technical bid of the Petitioner informed vide
email dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure-10) in view of
the fact that the same is unreasoned and is
arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India."
Factual Matrix of the case
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ
petition, required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-
3. The writ petitioner is the lead member of the consortium of
three private limited companies registered under the Companies Act,
2013. The respondent nos.3 and 4 are also the bidders who
participated and whose bids have also been technically evaluated.
4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Respondent CCL has
failed to acknowledge the clarifications submitted by the Petitioner,
despite, the fact that the clarifications sought for by the Petitioner
were submitted on 2.8.2024, i.e., the last date of submitting the
clarifications, and further because of the fact that the clarifications
required from the Petitioner did not affect its eligibility.
5. The Petitioner Company is mainly engaged in the business of
operation of coal washeries in the State of Chhattisgarh, Orissa and
Maharashtra and serving various state generating companies
through these coal washeries.
6. The Respondent CCL invited a tender vide E-Tender Notice
No. CCL/RNC/WC/ New Sawang Washery/23-24/02 dated 2.3.2024
(Tender ID 2024 CCL 304135 1) for planning, design, engineering
and setting up of coal washing plant and its subsequent operating
and maintenance to produce washed / clean coal of requisite quality
and delivery of washed / clean coal to Sawan Railway siding at the
Kathara Area of CCL in Bokaro district. The capacity of the washery
would be 1.5 Metric Tonnes Per Annum of raw coal. The project was
a BOO Project (Build Own Operate) and duration of the project was
36 months for construction trial run and commission, and 18 years of
operation and maintenance, extendable for a further period of 10
years on mutually agreeable terms.
7. The eligibility criteria of the bidders was specified in clause 10
of the NIT to the effect that "The Technical Qualification Requirement
(TQR) and Financial Qualification Requirement (FQR) of the Bidders
and/or Associate(s) for coal washery under "Build-Own-Operate"
(BOO) Concept should be to meet the qualifying requirement as
stipulated hereafter". Thereafter, various stipulation as to required
experience, net worth, working capital etc. are stipulated in clause
10.
8. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has participated in
the abovementioned NIT as a consortium with two other companies,
namely, Maa Durga Coal and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Rama Coal
Washeries Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner was the lead member of the
consortium and being eligible in all respects, the bid was submitted
on behalf of the consortium on 25.5.2024, along with the requisite
EMD of Rs. 50,00,000.
9. Thereafter, it was informed by the Tender Issuing Authority that
the technical covers had been opened on 25.6.2024 and the offers
received were under techno commercial scrutiny.
10. As per the information available on the e-procurement portal of
Respondent CCL, the following bidders including the Petitioner
participated in the abovementioned tender -
(i) Consortium of Clean Coal Enterprises Pvt.
Ltd. (Lead member), Rama Coal Washeries
Pvt. Ltd and Maa Durga Coal and Minerals
Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner herein)
(ii) Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) Barjora Mining Pvt. Ltd.
11. The bid submitted by the petitioner was technically evaluated
by the Tender Committee and certain clarifications / documents were
sought from the petitioner by uploading the omissions/ shortcomings
in the e-procurement portal. The said queries were uploaded by the
Respondent CCL on 26.7.2024 requiring the Petitioner to submit
response / clarifications by 11:00 AM of 2.8.2024.
12. Inadvertently, the petitioner could not check the online portal
and respond to the queries / clarifications due to the fact that the
office of the petitioner was being relocated.
13. The petitioner became aware of the queries /clarifications
raised by the Respondent CCL on receiving a follow-up call from
CCL after the expiry of the deadline on 2.8.2024.
14. Accordingly, the Petitioner vide email dated 2.8.2024 sought an
extension of 7 days to submit the relevant documents / clarifications.
15. On the queries raised by CCL, the petitioner on the very same
day furnished all the required documents / clarifications vide its email
dated 2.8.2024 (sent at 10:09 PM).
16. On receiving no response, the petitioner again issued another
letter dated 20.8.2024 vide email, requesting the Respondent CCL to
consider their technical bid as valid and open their price bid.
17. The writ petitioner has agitated his grievance that the rejection
of his technical bid vide communication dated 29.08.2024 is nothing
but an arbitrary exercise of the respondent-CCL that too on the basis
of a silly ground having no bearing with the issue of eligibility said to
be mandatory condition to be followed for consideration of
candidature of the present writ petitioner. Being aggrieved with the
aforesaid actions of the respondent-CCL, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
Arguments of the petitioner
18. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the actions taken
by the respondent-CCL:-
(i) The argument has been advanced by referring to the condition
stipulated under condition no.17.0 (vi) which is under the caption head
evaluation of bid.
It has been contended that the clarification with respect to the
bid document was to be submitted at 11:00 in the morning on
02.08.2024 but due to some bonafide mistake and inadvertence, it
could not have been submitted as required to be submitted under
condition no.(vi) of Clause 17.0 of the bid document. But without
taking into consideration the fact that the said document which was
submitted although after the scheduled time but on the same day,
the confirmatory document having not changed the eligibility status
of the bidder in connection with the information furnished by him.
(ii) The learned Senior Counsel has taken the ground that while
rejecting the bid document in such a hyper technical ground, is
nothing but only to accommodate the other bidders whose costs
having found to be after opening of the price bid much much in
higher side to that of the price of the present petitioner.
19. Learned Senior Counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground,
has submitted that the rejection of the bid document of the present
petitioner, therefore, is fit to be quashed and set aside and his
candidature is fit to be accepted by opening of the price bid.
Arguments of the respondent-CCL
20. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-CCL has taken the following grounds in opposition to the
pleading and arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner:-
(i) It has been contended that the condition stipulated in the bid
document is mandatorily to be adhered to, once the respondents
have issued the bid document incorporating certain terms and
conditions, the same is required to be followed in its strict sense and
it is not available for one or the other bidders to take the ground that
the particular condition which has not been followed is not
mandatory.
(ii) The argument has been advanced that the moment the
condition has been inserted in the bid document, it is the bounden
duty of each and every bidder to strictly follow it, failing which, it is
the privilege of the authority who has issued the bid to reject the
candidature of such bidder and exactly the same is the case herein,
since, the petitioner has not fulfilled the condition of submitting the
confirmatory documents, as required to be submitted as per Clause
17.0(vi) by 11:00 in the morning on 02.08.2024.
(iii) The ground has been taken that it is the admitted case of
the writ petitioner, as has been admitted by the writ petitioner at
paragraph-27 that the petitioner had committed an inadvertent and
bona fide mistake in not being able to reply to the queries raised by
the Department, as required to be furnished under Clause 17.0(vi)
under the caption head evaluation of bid.
(iv) The ground, therefore, has been taken that when the
petitioner himself is admitting the fact about non-submission of the
confirmatory document, as has been sought for by the respondents,
then, where is the question to seek relaxation in the said condition
that too after acceptance of the confirmatory document, as required
under Clause 17.0(vi) of the bid document.
21. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that rejection of the technical bid, therefore, suffers from
no error.
Analysis
22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the condition stipulated in the bid document, as also, the
pleading of the respective parties.
23. It needs to refer herein that this Court while hearing the matter on
04.09.2024, has called upon the respondent-CCL to seek instruction
and file affidavit and in pursuant thereto, the counter affidavit has been
filed, wherein, the ground in opposition has been taken regarding the
claim of the writ petitioner particularly at paragraph-19 of the counter
affidavit filed by the respondent-CCL.
24. This Court, before proceeding to answer the arguments
advanced on behalf of the parties, is of the view that the following
issues are required to be considered, i.e.,
(i) Whether the condition stipulated in the bid document with
respect to the clarification sought for by the authority, who has issued
the bid, if not complied with, the bid document is to be accepted or it
is to be rejected on the ground of non-compliance of the clarification
sought for by the respondent concerned;
(ii) Whether the condition stipulated in the bid document,
based upon that, the candidature of the writ petitioner has been
rejected, can be said to be mandatory or it is directory;
(iii) Whether on the basis of cost said to be in higher side on
assessment of one or the other bidders, can it be taken as a ground
to consider the candidature of one bidders whose candidature has
been rejected due to non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions at
the time of scrutiny of the technical bid.
25. All the three issues are related together and as such, the same
are being taken up together for their consideration.
26. This Court, before considering the same, first to decide as to
whether, the issue based upon that, the candidature of the writ
petitioner has been rejected at the scrutiny stage, can be said to be
mandatory or directory.
27. This Court, in order to answer the said issue, needs to refer
herein the certain terms and conditions of the bid document, based
upon that, the candidature of the writ petitioner has been rejected.
28. The bid has been invited for setting up of New Sawang Coking
Coal Washery (1.5 Mtpa) at Kathara area, CCL on BOO Concept.
29. Clause has been provided as under Clause 9.0 referring
therein the eligibility of the bidders, for ready reference, Clause 9.0,
under the caption head "eligible bidders" which contains sub-clause
9.1, 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, which are being referred as under:-
"9.0 Eligible Bidders
9.1 Any bidder enrolled in the site
https://coalindiatenders.nic.in having Digital
Signature Certificate (DSC) issued from any agency
authorized by Controller of Certifying Authority (CCA),
Govt. of India and which can be traced up to the chain
of trust to the Root Certificate of CCA subject to his
qualification as per Clause no. 10.0 of this detail e-
tender notice. The bidder may be a proprietary
concern/ partnership firm/body corporate/ Company
registered under the Companies Act 2013 or any
previous Company Law/Act as applicable in India/
Joint Venture or equivalent in case of Foreign Bidders.
In case of Joint Venture (JV) or consortium unless
otherwise specified, all the partners shall be jointly
and severally liable.
All Indian bidders should be registered under
GST and should possess GST Registration Certificate
(with GSTIN).
9.1.1 Participation of Joint Venture company
A Joint Venture Company may participate in the
bidding process either as a sole bidder or as a
member of consortium. Each member/ entity of the
Joint Venture Company shall be responsible jointly &
severally for completing the task as per the bid.
Joint Venture Company shall comply the
following:
a) Documentary evidence (Certificate of
Incorporation; Certificate of Registration;
Memorandum & Article of Association etc.) w.r.t.
formation of the joint venture company must be
furnished with the offer.
b) The offer shall include all the information
regarding capability, experience as required for a
bidder for each entity in Exhibit 1. For the purpose of
eligibility criteria, collective credentials of the members
of a Joint Venture Company will also be considered.
c) An entity can be a member in only one Joint
Venture Company. In case, same entity submits offer
as a member of other Joint Venture Company for the
same project then offers submitted by all such joint
venture companies shall be rejected.
d) Separate offer by an entity of a Joint Venture
Company shall not be accepted.
e) In case, JV Company submitting its Offer on
the financial strength and/ or technical competence of
its holding company/ JV Partner(s), it has to obtain
and produce a letter of undertaking in Exhibit 6 to the
effect that in case of any untoward happening towards
the successful execution of the contract and/ or event
occurring that are distinct and different from the
stipulated terms & conditions of the bid document and
attributable to bidders, its holding company/ JV
Partner(s) shall be legally bound both jointly and
severally to this Contract for discharging all the
contractual obligations on behalf of bidder.
9.1.2 Participation of Subsidiary Company
In case, the Bidder is subsidiary/ entity(ies) of a
parent company and consolidated financial report is
prepared by the parent company showing information/
net-worth of subsidiary/ entity(ies) separately, the
same in respect of the subsidiary/ entity(ies) shall also
be considered to meet the eligibility criteria. In such
case, copy of a letter from the parent company to that
effect shall be submitted as Exhibit 5.
In case, the Bidder/ Consortium partner(s) being
a subsidiary company submitting its Offer on the
financial strength and/ or technical competence of its
holding company, it has to obtain and produce a letter
of undertaking in Exhibit 6 to the effect that in case of
any untoward happening towards the successful
execution of the contract and/ or event occurring that
are distinct and different from the stipulated terms &
conditions of the bid document and attributable to
bidders/ consortium partner(s), its holding company
shall be legally bound both jointly and severally to this
contract for discharging all the contractual obligations
on behalf of bidder/ consortium partner(s)."
30. It is evident from Clause 9.1 that any bidder enrolled in the site
https://coalindiatenders.nic.in having Digital Signature Certificate
(DSC) issued from any agency authorized by Controller of Certifying
Authority (CCA), Govt. of India and which can be traced up to the
chain of trust to the Root Certificate of CCA subject to his
qualification as per Clause no. 10.0 of this detail e- tender notice.
The bidder may be a proprietary concern/ partnership firm/body
corporate/ Company registered under the Companies Act 2013 or
any previous Company Law/Act as applicable in India/ Joint Venture
or equivalent in case of Foreign Bidders. In case of Joint Venture
(JV) or consortium unless otherwise specified, all the partners shall
be jointly and severally liable.
31. All Indian bidders should be registered under GST and should
possess GST Registration Certificate (with GSTIN).
32. It is evident from clause 9.1.1 that aJoint Venture Company
may participate in the bidding process either as a sole bidder or as a
member of consortium. Each member/ entity of the Joint Venture
Company shall be responsible jointly & severally for completing the
task as per the bid.
33. The Joint Venture Company is required to submit the
documents, as referred and quoted hereinabove.
34. The Subsidiary Company can also participate, as would appear
from Clause 9.1.2 and in such case, the Bidder is subsidiary/
entity(ies) of a parent company and consolidated financial report is
prepared by the parent company showing information/ net-worth of
subsidiary/ entity(ies) separately, the same in respect of the
subsidiary/ entity(ies) shall also be considered to meet the eligibility
criteria.
35. A clause has been provided under the caption head as Route
of Bidding. Clause 9.2.1 provides Sole Bidder Route, while 9.2.2
provides Associate/Consortium Route.
36. Here, the factual aspect of the present case is that the
petitioner has participated in the bid on the basis of the Consortium
Route and as per which, the requirement which is to be followed is
that one of the Consortium partner shall be designated as Lead
Member (LM). In this route, two or more (maximum three including
Lead Member) entities may jointly participate in the bidding process
including the Lead Member. Each entity shall be jointly and severally
responsible for completing the task as per the contract. The
consortium shall comply the requirements given hereafter.
37. Clause 9.3 provides the submission of certain documents as
submission of Exhibit-1, GST registration Certificate, MoU & PoA (to
be submitted by Bidders as a Confirmatory Document).
38. The eligibility criteria for bidding has been provided under
clause 10.0, which contains sub-clause, i.e., 10.1, 10.2, 10.2.1,
10.2.2, 10.2.2.1 10.2.2.2.
39. Clause 10.1 provides desired profile of Bidder/Associates.
Clause 10.2 provides desired qualification requirement of
bidders/associates.
40. Clause 10.2.1 provides the technical qualification requirement
(TQR), as per which, the bidder/associates(s) shall have a proven
track record of successful completion of setting up atleast one (single
unit) Coal/Mineral Beneficiation Plant of minimum 0.5 Mtpa with
Jig/HM Separation/Spiral/Flotation technologies or combination
thereof in the last Eighteen (18) years (from last day of the month
previous to the one in which bid is invited). In respect of the above
eligibility criteria, the bidders are required to furnish the following
information along with Exhibit-7:
a. Name of the Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation Plant set
up.
b. Material Handled.
c. Complete address of the plant.
d. Whether Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation Plant is owned
by bidder/Associate/Client.
e. Name of the Client (if owned by client, else N.A.).
f. Ref. No. & Date of Award of Work (if owned by Client, else
N.A).
g. Whether the scope of work for the reference plant included
Planning, Design & Engineering, Procurement, Construction &
Erection, Commissioning.
h. Plant capacity (in tonnes per annum).
i. Date of Commissioning of the plant.
j. Brief Description of technology used in the referred plant
(Jig/HM Separation/Spiral/Flotation/ combination thereof).
41. The aforesaid condition stipulates a note, wherein, it has been
provided that Bidder/Associate(s) should submit a notarized
certificate from its client or, notarized self-certificate in case the plant
is owned by the Bidder/Associate(s) itself that "Bidder/Associate(s)
has successfully performed Planning, Design & Engineering,
Procurement, Construction & Erection, Commissioning of the plant.
42. Clause 10.2.1B provides that the Bidder/ Associate(s) shall
have the experience of operation and maintenance (O&M) of the
Coal/ Mineral Beneficiation plant of minimum 0.5 Mtpa with Jig/HM
Separation/Spiral/Flotation technologies or combination thereof for a
continuous period of minimum 2 years in the last Eighteen (18) years
(from last day of the month previous to the one in which bid is
invited) with minimum 10, 00,000 (Ten lakh) tonnes quantity of raw
coal/mineral handled.
43. In respect of the above eligibility criteria the bidders are
required to furnish the following information along with Exhibit-7:
a. Name of the Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation Plant
operated.
b. Material Handled.
c. Complete address of the plant.
d. Plant capacity (in tonnes per annum).
e. Whether the operated Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation
Plant is owned by bidder/Associate/Client
f. Name of the Client (if owned by client, else N.A.).
g. Ref. No. & Date of Award of Work for operation (if owned by
Client, else N.A).
h. Whether the scope of work for the reference plant included
Operation of Plant and Maintenance of Plant.
i. Maximum Quantity of Raw Coal/ Mineral (Tonnes) handled by
the plant in any two consecutive years during last Eighteen (18)
years. Quantity handled in two consecutive years should not be less
than 10,00,000 (Ten lakh) tonnes.
j. Brief description of technology used in the referred plant
(Jig/HM Separation/Spiral/Flotation/combination thereof).
44. Clause 17.0 stipulates about evaluation of bid which contain
clauses, which are having bearing with the present issue.
45. It is evident from condition stipulated under condition no.(i) of
the clause 17.0 that after opening of Technical bid, the documents
submitted by bidder(s) in Part-1 as enlisted in NIT will be
downloaded by the Evaluator and shall be put up to the Tender
Committee. The Tender Committee will examine the uploaded
documents against information/declarations furnished by the
bidder(s) online. If it confirms to all of the information/ declarations
furnished by the bidder online and does not change the eligibility
status of the bidder then the bidder will be considered eligible for
opening of Price Bid.
46. Condition no.(ii) provides that in case the Tender Committee
finds that there is some deficiency in uploaded documents
corresponding to the information furnished online or in case
corresponding document have not been uploaded by Bidder(s) then
the same wilt be specified online by Evaluator clearly indicating the
omissions/shortcomings in the uploaded documents and indicating
start date and end date allowing 7 days (7 x 24 hours) time for online
re-submission by bidder. The bidder will get this information on their
personalized dash board under "Upload confirmatory document" link.
Additionally, information shall also be sent by system generated
email and SMS, but it will be the bidder's responsibility to check the
updated status/information on their personalized dash board
regularly after opening of bid. No separate communication will be
made in this regard. Non-receipt of e-mail and SMS will not be
accepted as a reason of non-submission of documents within
prescribed time. The bidder(s) will upload the scanned copy of all
those specified documents in support of the information/ declarations
furnished by them online within the specified period of 7 (Seven)
days. If the bidder(s) fails to submit the specified document/s in 7
(Seven) days. No further document shall be sought from Bidder.
47. Condition no.(vi) provides that in case the bidder(s) fails to
confirm online submitted information(s)/declaration(s) by the
submitted documents as (ii) above, their/his bid shall be rejected;
however, if the confirmatory documents do not change eligibility
status of the bidder in connection his submitted online information(s)/
declaration(s), then his/their bid will be accepted for opening of Price
Bid, for ready reference, condition no.(i), (ii) and (vi) of clause 17.0
are being referred as under:-
"17.0 Evaluation of Bid
i) After opening of Technical bid, the documents
submitted by bidder(s) in Part-1 as enlisted in NIT will
be downloaded by the Evaluator and shall be put up to
the Tender Committee. The Tender Committee will
examine the uploaded documents against
information/declarations furnished by the bidder(s)
online. If it confirms to all of the information/
declarations furnished by the bidder online and does
not change the eligibility status of the bidder then the
bidder will be considered eligible for opening of Price
Bid.
ii) In case the Tender Committee finds that there is
some deficiency in uploaded documents
corresponding to the information furnished online or in
case 18 corresponding document have not been
uploaded by Bidder(s) then the same wilt be specified
online by Evaluator clearly indicating the
omissions/shortcomings in the uploaded documents
and indicating start date and end date allowing 7 days
(7 x 24 hours) time for online re-submission by bidder.
The bidder will get this information on their
personalized dash board under "Upload confirmatory
document link. Additionally, information shall also be
sent by system generated email and SMS, but it will
be the bidder's responsibility to check the updated
status/information on their personalized dash board
regularly after opening of bid. No separate
communication will be made in this regard. Non-
receipt of e-mail and SMS will not be accepted as a
reason of non-submission of documents within
prescribed time. The bidder(s) will upload the scanned
copy of all those specified documents in support of the
information/ declarations furnished by them online
within the specified period of 7 (Seven) days. If the
bidder(s) fails to submit the specified document/s in 7
(Seven) days. No further document shall be sought
from Bidder.
vi) In case the bidder(s) fails to confirm online
submitted information(s)/declaration(s) by the
submitted documents as (ii) above, their/his bid shall
be rejected; however, if the confirmatory documents
do not change eligibility status of the bidder in
connection his submitted online information(s)/
declaration(s), then his/their bid will be accepted for
opening of Price Bid"
48. The reference of the condition as contained in the bid
documents which has got bearing for the present issue that the
required document after submission of the bid document is to be
submitted by one or the other bidder as per the condition no.(ii) of
clause 17.0.
49. However, in case the bidder fails to confirm the online
submitted information(s)/declaration(s) by the submitted documents
as (ii) above, such bid shall be rejected. However, the exception has
been carved out that if the confirmatory documents do not change
eligibility status of the bidder in connection his submitted online
information(s)/ declaration(s), then his/their bid will be accepted for
opening of Price Bid.
50. As such, it is evident that the requirement to consider the
necessity of document which is to be submitted and the necessity
will be of such subsequent document which is to be submitted, if not
submitted, as per the requirement made under clause 17.0(ii) then
such document which has not been submitted, if in no way changed
the eligibility criteria of one or the other bidders, then the candidature
of such bidder will not be cancelled and his bid will be accepted for
opening of price bid that would be the meaning of condition
stipulated under clause 17.0(vi).
51. This Court, in this connection needs to refer herein the
Confirmatory Documents Submission Confirmation, as has been
brought on record by way of annexure-5 by the writ petitioner.
52. It is evident from column no.(ii), i.e., document submission start
date that the last date of acceptance of the application was 26th July,
2024 up to 11 a.m. in the morning. The document submission end
date was 02.08.2024 up to 11 a.m. in the morning.
53. The evaluator description is under column no.(vi), whereby and
whereunder, as would appear from running page 236 which is the
part of Annexure-5 that exhibit-7 -bidder has submitted details of 4
plants owned by lead member, M/s Clean Coal at point no.g of the
Exhibit-7. However, as per clause no.10.2.1B, experience of
operation and maintenance of the Coal/Mineral Beneficiation plant of
minimum 0.5 Mtpa is required.
54. Bidder to submit a clarification as which plant owned by them
and subsequently its raw coal quantity handled for two consecutive
years as per requirement of clause no.10.2.1B to meet the Technical
Qualification requirement.
55. Moreover, notarized self-certificate is also required to be
submitted as per the Note mentioned in clause no.10.2.1 B of the
NIT. Bidder to take a note that same details as furnished under
Exhibit-7 is to be submitted in point no.2 under Exhibit-2.
56. It is, thus, evident that the technical evaluation committee while
evaluating the bid document of the writ petitioner particularly exhibit-
7 has found that the experience of operation and maintenance of the
Coal/Mineral Beneficiation plant of minimum 0.5 Mtpa is required of
the lead member M/s Clean Coal at point no.g, as contained under
Exhibit-7.
57. Clause 10.2.1B stipulates that the Bidder/ Associate(s) shall
have the experience of operation and maintenance (O&M) of the
Coal/ Mineral Beneficiation plant of minimum 0.5 Mtpa with Jig/HM
Separation/Spiral/Flotation technologies or combination thereof for a
continuous period of minimum 2 years in the last Eighteen (18) years
(from last day of the month previous to the one in which bid is
invited) with minimum 10, 00,000 (Ten lakh) tonnes quantity of raw
coal/mineral handled.
58. In respect of the above eligibility criteria the bidders are
required to furnish the following information along with Exhibit-7:
a. Name of the Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation Plant
operated.
b. Material Handled.
c. Complete address of the plant.
d. Plant capacity (in tonnes per annum).
e. Whether the operated Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation
Plant is owned by bidder/Associate/Client.
f. Name of the Client (if owned by client, else N.A.).
g. Ref. No. & Date of Award of Work for operation (if owned by
Client, else N.A).
h. Whether the scope of work for the reference plant included
Operation of Plant and Maintenance of Plant.
i. Maximum Quantity of Raw Coal/ Mineral (Tonnes) handled by
the plant in any two consecutive years during last Eighteen (18)
years. Quantity handled in two consecutive years should not be less
than 10,00,000 (Ten lakh) tonnes.
j. Brief description of technology used in the referred plant
(Jig/HM Separation/Spiral/Flotation/combination thereof).
59. The requirement to fulfill the same by one or the other bidders
with respect to the condition stipulated under clause 10.2.1B is the
qualification which is to be required for the purpose of having
experience of operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Coal/Mineral
Beneficiation plant.
60. The word starts, as would appear from clause 10.2.1(B) that
the Bidder/ Associate(s) shall have the experience of operation
and maintenance and as such, the word "shall" referred in the
aforesaid clause will be said to be mandatory. The same will also be
said to be mandatory by taking into consideration, the very nature of
the work which is for setting up of New Sawang coking coal washery
on BOO Concept.
61. The work consists of Planning, Design & Engineering,
Selection of necessary equipment and machinery, procurement,
delivery, erection/ installation along with all associated civil &
structural works, testing, successful commissioning of coal washing
plant including PGT with two years' critical spares, works required for
completion of entire project even if not specifically mentioned and all
allied activities as well as its subsequent operation & maintenance to
produce washed/clean coal and washed coal (power) of requisite
quality & quantity, as would be evident from the reference made
under Scope of Work in the very first page of bid document, for ready
reference, the relevant part of the same is being referred as under:-
"Setting up of New Sawang coking coal washery
(1.5 Mtpa) at Kathara area, CCL on BOO
Concept.
a. Scope of Work: The work consists of Planning,
Design & Engineering, Selection of necessary
equipment and machinery, procurement, delivery,
erection/ installation along with all associated civil &
structural works, testing, successful commissioning
of coal washing plant including PGT with two years'
critical spares, works required for completion of
entire project even if not specifically mentioned and
all allied activities as well as its subsequent
operation & maintenance to produce washed/clean
coal and washed coal (power) of requisite quality &
quantity; their covered storage at washery site and
delivery of washed/clean coal and washed coal
(power) from their respective storage to the Sawang
Railway siding (loading into Railway wagons)
through Fast Loading System (FLS); conveying of
washery 3rd product/ rejects to identified 3rd
product/reject storage site adjacent to washery site"
62. This Court, after taking into consideration the reference of the
nature of work and again considering the condition stipulated under
clause 10.2.1B which speaks about the experience of operation and
maintenance (O&M) of the Coal/ Mineral Beneficiation plant of
minimum 0.5 Mtpa with Jig/HM Separation/Spiral/Flotation
technologies or combination thereof for a continuous period of
minimum 2 years in the last Eighteen (18) years, which impliedly
goes to suggest and clarify the position that the experience of one or
the other bidder is pre-requisite condition for the purpose of carrying
out the work smoothly and for its completion.
63. The admitted fact herein is as per the pleading made in the writ
petition as under paragraph-27 that certain documents have not
been furnished as was to be brought by way of filing exhibit-7, as has
been referred hereinabove, which are the necessary documents,
which were to be submitted, i.e.,
a. Name of the Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation Plant
operated.
b. Material Handled.
c. Complete address of the plant.
d. Plant capacity (in tonnes per annum).
e. Whether the operated Coal Washery/ Mineral Beneficiation
Plant is owned by bidder/Associate/Client.
f. Name of the Client (if owned by client, else N.A.).
g. Ref. No. & Date of Award of Work for operation (if owned by
Client, else N.A).
h. Whether the scope of work for the reference plant included
Operation of Plant and Maintenance of Plant.
i. Maximum Quantity of Raw Coal/ Mineral (Tonnes) handled by
the plant in any two consecutive years during last Eighteen (18)
years. Quantity handled in two consecutive years should not be less
than 10,00,000 (Ten lakh) tonnes.
j. Brief description of technology used in the referred plant
(Jig/HM Separation/Spiral/Flotation/combination thereof).
64. The said condition, as has been considered hereinabove, to be
mandatory and as such, if one or the other bidder is having no such
condition, it cannot be said to be suitable for consideration of bid
document at the technical assessment stage.
65. However, here the case of the writ petitioner is that the said
documents are there, but, it could not have been submitted within the
scheduled time of 11:00 in the morning on the closure date, i.e., on
02.08.2024.
66. The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot question the propriety of
the said condition, since, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner
that the said document was sought for and considering the same to
be the mandatory requirement, the same has also been submitted
but not within the scheduled time as scheduled by the respondent,
which was by 11:00 in the morning on 02.08.2024, rather, the same
was submitted at 11:00 in the night on 02.08.2024, therefore, writ
petitioner is admitting the fact that there is non-compliance of the
condition stipulated under condition no.10.2.1(B) read with condition
no.17.0(vi).
67. Therefore, what has been argued on behalf of the writ
petitioner that by taking the second part of Clause 17.0(vi) that such
condition even if was not there, the same will be said to be not
primary for the purpose of rejection of candidature of the writ
petitioner.
68. But, this Court is not in agreement with such submission,
reason being by taking into consideration the very nature of the work
and the bidder on their own wisdom has put the condition by
inserting the condition to assess one or the other bidder based upon
the experience and that is the reason, the condition has been
stipulated under condition no.10.2.1(A) as quoted and referred
hereinabove.
69. The respondent-CCL, considering the nature of work, has
taken the decision by inserting the condition of experience to the
extent of experience of operation and maintenance (O&M) of the
Coal/Mineral beneficiation plant of minimum 0.5 Mtpa with Jig/HM
Separation/Spiral/Flotation technologies or combination, which
admittedly at the time of submitting the bid document, has not been
submitted by the writ petitioner, rather, on the basis of the
clarification sought for regarding the submission of document which
was not submitted at the first instance, has also not been submitted
within the time schedule.
70. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the
respondent that after the closure of the time schedule, i.e., on or
after 11:00 a.m. on 02.08.2024, the acceptance of the further
document as required under clause 17.0(vi) had been closed and the
entire document has been sent for its further process to the CMPDI
by 1:00 p.m.
71. Be that as it may, we are not concern as to when it was sent,
rather, we are concern that when the time schedule for submitting
the document as per the requirement stipulated under clause 17.0(vi)
having admitted to be not adhered to, "whether in such
circumstances, the petitioner can be said to have a right to seek a
direction for consideration of his candidature, is the core question
which is to be decided in addition to the question which has been
referred as above."
72. The writ petitioner when is admitting that the said document
has not been submitted within time but he has tried to impress upon
the Court that even the said document will not be taken into
consideration then also there will be no bearing of the consideration
of the candidature of the writ petitioner.
73. As such, due to non-compliance of the condition, as stipulated
under Clause 17.0(vi), the rejection of the technical bid, therefore,
cannot be said to suffer from an error.
74. This Court, therefore, is of the view that proposition of law in
this regard needs to be referred herein.
75. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram
Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India, reported in
(1979) 3 SCC 489, wherein, it has been held that the condition
stipulated in the bid is strictly to be adhered.
76. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.J.
Fernandez v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 488, the principles
laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India, (supra) were reaffirmed. It was reaffirmed that
the party issuing the tender (the employer) "has the right to
punctiliously and rigidly" enforce the terms of the tender. If a party
approaches a court for an order restraining the employer from strict
enforcement of the terms of the tender, the court would decline to do
so. It was also reaffirmed that the employer could deviate from the
terms and conditions of the tender if the "changes affected all
intending applicants alike and were not objectionable". Therefore,
deviation from the terms and conditions is permissible so long as the
level playing field is maintained and it does not result in any
arbitrariness or discrimination. For ready reference, the relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:-
"15. Thirdly, the conditions and stipulations in a tender
notice like this have two types of consequences. The first
is that the party issuing the tender has the right to
punctiliously and rigidly enforce them. Thus, if a party does
not strictly comply with the requirements of para III, V or VI
of the NIT, it is open to the KPC to decline to consider the
party for the contract and if a party comes to court saying
that the KPC should be stopped from doing so, the court
will decline relief. The second consequence, indicated by
this Court in earlier decisions, is not that the KPC cannot
deviate from these guidelines at all in any situation but that
any deviation, if made, should not result in arbitrariness or
discrimination. It comes in for application where the non-
conformity with, or relaxation from, the prescribed
standards results in some substantial prejudice or injustice
to any of the parties involved or to public interest in
general. For example, in this very case, the KPC made
some changes in the time frame originally prescribed.
These changes affected all intending applicants alike and
were not objectionable. In the same way, changes or
relaxations in other directions would be unobjectionable
unless the benefit of those changes or relaxations were
extended to some but denied to others. The fact that a
document was belatedly entertained from one of the
applicants will cause substantial prejudice to another party
who wanted, likewise, an extension of time for filing a
similar certificate or document but was declined the
benefit. It may perhaps be said to cause prejudice also to
a party which can show that it had refrained from applying
for the tender documents only because it thought it would
not be able to produce the document by the time
stipulated but would have applied had it known that the
rule was likely to be relaxed. But neither of these
situations is present here. Shri Vaidyanathan says that in
this case one of the applicants was excluded at the
preliminary stage. But it is not known on what grounds that
application was rejected nor has that party come to court
with any such grievance. The question, then, is whether
the course adopted by the KPC has caused any real
prejudice to the appellant and other parties who had
already supplied all the documents in time and sought no
extension at all? It is true that the relaxation of the time
schedule in the case of one party does affect even such a
person in the sense that he would otherwise have had one
competitor less. But, we are inclined to agree with the
respondent's contention that while the rule in Ramana
case [(1990) 2 SCC 486] will be readily applied by courts
to a case where a person complains that a departure from
the qualifications has kept him out of the race, injustice is
less apparent where the attempt of the applicant before
court is only to gain immunity from competition. Assuming
for purposes of argument that there has been a slight
deviation from the terms of the NIT, it has not deprived the
appellant of its right to be considered for the contract; on
the other hand, its tender has received due and full
consideration. If, save for the delay in filing one of the
relevant documents, MCC is also found to be qualified to
tender for the contract, no injustice can be said to have
been done to the appellant by the consideration of its
tender side by side with that of the MCC and in the KPC
going in for a choice of the better on the merits. The
appellant had no doubt also urged that the MCC had no
experience in this line of work and that the appellant was
much better qualified for the contract. The comparative
merits of the appellant vis-a-vis MCC are, however, a
matter for the KPC (counselled by the TCE) to decide and
not for the courts. We were, therefore, rightly not called
upon to go into this question."
77. Further, in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. SLL-SML (Joint
Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or
superfluous. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being referred
as under:-
"47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of
the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder
should be looked at not only from the point of view
of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of
view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the
terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant
or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and
the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata
Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6
SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in
interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the
soundness of the decision taken by the employer
ought not to be questioned but the decision-making
process can certainly be subject to judicial review.
The soundness of the decision may be questioned
if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour
someone or a decision "that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance with
relevant law could have reached" as held
in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan
Rubber [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216]."
78. It needs to refer herein that the power of judicial review which is
to be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, can only be exercised if there is error in the
decision making process or the exercise is irrational or arbitrary,
reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd.
Vrs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., [(1999)1 SCC 492], the
Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of scope of judicial
review has laid down by holding therein that the decision-making
process suffers from bias of arbitrariness the same will be scrutinized
under the power of judicial review.
79. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public
sector corporations was reviewed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported
in (2000) 2 SCC 617 wherein it has been observed that the award of
a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a
commercial transaction and it can choose its own method to arrive at
a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons,
if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation.
80. It was further held that the State, its corporations,
instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all
concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making
process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under
Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in
furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a
legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in
mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not.
Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest
requires interference, the court should interfere.
81. In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson
(P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
while exercising power of judicial review in respect of contracts, the
court should concern itself primarily with the question, whether there
has been any infirmity in the decision-making process. By way of
judicial review, the court cannot examine details of terms of contract
which have been entered into by public bodies or the State.
82. In the case of Jagdish Mandal Vrs. State of Orissa & Ors.
[(2007) 14 SCC 517], it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the power of judicial review in the contractual matters is
permissible only if, (I) the process adopted or decision made is mala
fide or intended to favour someone or the same is so arbitrary and
irrational that the court can say: 'the decision is such that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law
could have reached.' (II) public interest is affected.
83. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is being quoted as under:-
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is
intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its
purpose is to check whether choice or decision is
made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice
or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial
review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or
award of contracts, certain special features should
be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial
transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding
contracts are essentially commercial functions.
Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a
distance. If the decision relating to award of
contract is bona fide and is in public interest,
courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial
review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or
error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is
made out. The power of judicial review will not be
permitted to be invoked to protect private interest
at the cost of public interest, or to decide
contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor
with a grievance can always seek damages in a
civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers
with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and
business rivalry, to make mountains out of
molehills of some technical/procedural violation or
some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to
interfere by exercising power of judicial review,
should be resisted. Such interferences, either
interim or final, may hold up public works for
years, or delay relief and succour to thousands
and millions and may increase the project cost
manifold."
84. In the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216] the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
that if the State or its instrumentalities acted reasonably, fairly and in
public interest in awarding contract, interference by court would be
very restrictive since no person could claim fundamental right to carry
on business with the Government. Therefore, the courts would not
normally interfere in policy decisions and in matters challenging
award of contract by the State or public authorities.
85. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16
SCC 818, it was held that a mere disagreement with the decision-
making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no
reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala
fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or
perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with
the decision-making process or the decision. The owner or the
employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the
best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and
interpret its documents. It is possible that the owner or employer of a
project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not
acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason
for interfering with the interpretation given.
86. This Court, based upon the discussion made hereinabove as
also the admitted fact herein regarding non-compliance of the
condition stipulated in the bid document, is of the view that this Court
cannot come to the conclusion that there is any error in the decision
making process, reason being that, it is fault committed on the part of
the petitioner in not complying the part of the condition stipulated in
the bid document.
87. The further consideration has been made by this Court that if
the condition stipulated in the bid document has not been adhered to,
whether in granting any relaxation in the same, will amount to
violation of principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, since, acceptance of candidature of such bidders will only
amount to relaxation, which is not permissible.
88. The question which has been raised on behalf of the writ
petitioner that the price which has been quoted by the successful
bidder which is in much higher side and as such, on that ground also
the candidature of the petitioner is to be considered but this Court is
of the view that the question of consideration of price of one or the
other bidders is the consequence and only to be considered after
one or the other bidders having found to be successful in the
technical bid.
89. This Court has also considered the issue that when the fact
about non-fulfilling the requirement within time schedule as per
Clause stipulated under clause 17.0(vi), in such circumstances, the
petitioner when admitting the negligence committed on his part, he
cannot be allowed to avail the advantage of its own wrong.
90. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been taken into
consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sorath
Builders Vrs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited & Anr., reported in
(2009) 11 SCC 9, wherein, at paragraph27, it has been held that the
respondent no.1 was negligent and was not sincere in submitting his
pre-qualification documents within the time schedule laid down
despite the fact that he had information that there is a time schedule
attached to the notice inviting tenders. Despite being aware of the
said stipulation he did not submit the required documents within the
stipulated date. Pre-qualification documents were received by
respondent 2 University only after the time schedule was over. The
terms and conditions of the tender as held by the Supreme Court are
required to be adhered to strictly, for ready reference, paragraph-27
of the said judgment is being referred as under:-
"27. Following the aforesaid legal principles laid
down by this Court, we are of the considered opinion
that Respondent 1 was negligent and was not sincere
in submitting his pre-qualification documents within the
time schedule laid down despite the fact that he had
information that there is a time schedule attached to
the notice inviting tenders. Despite being aware of the
said stipulation he did not submit the required
documents within the stipulated date. Pre-qualification
documents were received by Respondent 2 University
only after the time schedule was over. The terms and
conditions of the tender as held by the Supreme Court
are required to be adhered to strictly, and therefore,
Respondent 2 University was justified in not opening
the tender submitted by Respondent 1 on 1-12-2008,
which was late by three days. According to us no
grievance could also be made by Respondent 1 as
lapse was due to his own fault."
91. Herein also, applying the said principle, the petitioner is also
not aware to the time schedule which is the admitted case of the writ
petitioner and as such, he became negligent and was not sincere in
submitting his pre-qualification documents and as such, this Court is
of the view that no such indulgence can be granted to the writ
petitioner for consideration of the bid documents.
92. This Court, on consideration of the factual and legal issues as
referred hereinabove, is of the view that no positive direction can be
passed in favour of the writ petitioner.
93. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Rohit/-A.F.R.
