Jharkhand High Court
M/S Abhay Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 4 July, 2018
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2248 of 2018
M/s Abhay Kumar Sinha, having its office at Flat no. 4/E,
Geetanjali Apartment, Hirapur, Dhanbad through its Chief
Executive, Mr. Asok Kumar Majumdar, Aged about 74 years
S/o. Late B.K. Majumdar, R/o. 81 Jatindas Road, Kolkata, P.O.
Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata & P.S. Lake, District - Kolkata (West
Bengal) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary,
Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
3. Regional Chief Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation
Department, Dumka Zone, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District
Dumka.
4. Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation
Circle, Dhanbad, Government of Jharkhand P.O. & P.S.:
Dhanbad District Dhanbad.
5. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and sanitation
Division-1, Dhanbad, Government of Jharkhand P.O. & P.S. :-
Dhanbad District Dhanbad ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, A.C. to A.G.
---
09/04.07.2018 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate.
2. Heard Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. This Writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"Quashing the decision dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure-5) of the Tender Committee of the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi pursuant to Invitation of the BIDS having Tender reference no. Dhanbad - 1/O & M/ - 14/2017-18 (5th Call) by the respondent Department, whereby and where under the 2 respondents have arbitrarily rejected the technical bid of the petitioner solely on the reason that Joint Venture (JV) partners does not have experience related to similar nature of works in terms of clause 4.5 A
(b) of the Bid Document ITB (Instruction to Bidders).
(b) Quashing the subsequent Tender Notice dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-6) having reference no. Dhanabad - 1/O&M/14/2017-18 (6th call) issued by the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division-1 Dhanbad published on 28.04.2018 is daily news paper inviting bids for same work, caption as "Operation and Maintenance of 77 MLD WTP at Bhelatand, 14.5 MLD WTP at Maithan with back wash recovery system, Intake works at Gogna, Maithan Dam, Raw water rising mains 1000mm dia D.I. k-9 44 kms, from Maithan Dam to Bhelatand WTP and 450 mm dia D.I. k-9, 8 Kms to Maithan WTP, clear water rising mains, D.I. k-9 800 mm to 250 mm 48 kms, clear water distribution mains 600 mm to 100mm dia 341 kms in Dhanbad city, 300 mm to 100mm dia 81 km in Chirkunda area, Dhanbad, Govindpur & Nirsa and water supply from 27 nos. of existing ESR under Dhanbad Water supply scheme phase - 1 & 2 for the year 2018-19 & 2019-20 excluding the energy cost."
(c) Subsequent thereto, to command upon the respondents authorities to take a decision in terms of clause 163 (a) note-4 of the Jharkhand PWD Code 2012 and 4.17 of the Central Vigilance Commission's guidelines, to grant the above said work in terms of Invitation of Bids (5th Call) to the petitioner (if otherwise the petitioner is eligible) who have been qualifying as single tenderer in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th calls of the Department for the said work in the interest of public at large."
And During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents' authorities should be restrained to take any action in furtherance of the notice inviting bids dated 26.4.2018."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that that petitioner is class-I registered contractor in Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand and has been undertaking various work as joint venture firm. He submits 3 that for the work in question i.e., operation and maintenance work under Dhanbad water supply scheme phase-I and phase - II, the petitioner's firm was the lead partner in joint venture and had entered into an agreement with the respondent department for the years 2013-14 & 2014- 15 and since thereafter the petitioner has been executing the said work upon time extension being granted by the department.
4. Thereafter, notice inviting bid for the said work was issued by the respondent department and the petitioner has been participating as a joint venture but in spite of petitioner having all the eligibility criteria for the work in terms of the tender notice, the work could not be allocated to the petitioner by the department for one reason or the other and for continuous four calls the petitioner was declared technically eligible.
5. Thereafter, the 5th call inviting bid was given by the department on 22.08.2017 and in order to participate in the tender, the petitioner entered into a joint venture agreement on 09.10.2017 with M/s Teekey Management and Pragati Engineering Industrial Services and the petitioner's firm i.e., Abhay Kumar Sinha was the lead partner in the said joint venture and the petitioner in terms of the joint venture agreement submitted its bid.
6. However, in spite of submission of bid by the petitioner in the capacity of joint venture, the petitioner did not receive any response from the department and ultimately when the petitioner applied for information under Right to Information the respondent issued letter No.832 dated 26.04.2018, informing that the tender committee of the respondent has rejected the tender (5th call) and thereafter the petitioner was handed over a copy of the tender committee decision dated 11.04.2018 wherein the technical bid of the petitioner was disqualified by holding that the joint venture partners M/s Teekey Management and 4 M/s Pragati Engineering Industrial Services is not having experience of similar nature of work as per clause 4.5 A (b) of the bid document instruction to bidders and thus technical bid of the said joint venture of the petitioner was rejected.
7. It has been specifically raised in the writ petition that the respondent authority has completely ignored or misinterpreted the eligibility criteria as mentioned in instructions to bidders and in para - 32 of the writ petition, a statement has been made by the writ petitioner that the respondent authority, only to accommodate a particular party have acted malafidely in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, although the joint venture partners of the petitioner have more than the required eligibility as per notice inviting bid read with other connected documents.
8. Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has laid stress on clause-4.4.4 of Section 1 of instructions to bidder and submitted that the same mentions about qualifying criteria for joint venture and as per clause - 4.4.4(a), the joint venture must satisfy collectively (emphasized by the counsel for the petitioner) the criteria for this purpose the following data of each member of the joint venture may be added together to meet the collective qualifying criteria.
9. The counsel submits that the said data relates to annual turnover, particular operation and maintenance, personal capabilities, equipment capabilities and financial capabilities.
10. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the qualifying criteria has to be seen of the joint venture as a whole and the very purpose of joint venture in the modern times is to ensure that the capabilities or experience of one party to the joint venture is utilized by the joint venture as a whole. This kind of arrangement helps different persons to come at a particular platform and share their experience, finances and capabilities so as to participate in bid and provide best possible work to the 5 bid. It may not be possible for a single person to have all the qualifications as well as financial capabilities and in this background the joint ventures are formed.
11. He further submits that if the individual capacities of joint ventures is to be taken into consideration then the very concept and the very purpose of formation of joint venture would frustrate.
12. He submits that as per the bid document itself, the joint venture has to collectively satisfy the various criteria and therefor the rejection of technical bid on the basis of individual qualifying criteria of the participating persons in joint venture is not only illegal and arbitrary but is colourable exercise of power in order to favour 3rd person.
13. He further submits that the petitioner has been executing the work as joint venture and subsequently in all the 4 calls of the bid, the petitioner had participated as joint venture but at no point time the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. It is for the first time in 5th call, the technical bid has been rejected by evaluating the capability of individual participants of the joint venture.
14. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 (New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.), he has referred to para - 17, 24 and 25 of the said judgment and submits that this judgment explains the entire concept of joint venture. He has also referred to para - 26 of the said judgment, to submit that it has been held that once the participating unit is held to be a joint venture, the experience of various constituents has to be taken into consideration by the tender evaluation committee. He submits that while evaluating the bid, the capacity of the joint venture as whole was to be taken into consideration and examining the capacity of individual participant of the joint venture is against the mandate of law, 6 which has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in the said judgment which is binding on all under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the approach which has been adopted by the respondents in evaluating the technical bid is contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment and accordingly any criteria in instructions to bidder which is contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court has to be declared opposed to public policy and cannot be given effect to by the respondents. He further submits that there was no requirement for the petitioner to challenge any such clause and such clauses are to be read down in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that if the terms of the tender are read in the manner the respondents are trying to read, the very concept of joint venture will frustrate and this will be against public interest. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon another judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12065 of 2016 decided on 15.05.2017 (M/s CRRC Corporation Ltd. Vs. Metro link Express for Gandhi Nagar and Ahmedabad (Mega) Company ltd.) para - 34, 37 and
38. He submits that in this particular judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 has been followed and the concept of joint venture has been reiterated. He reiterates that the joint venture has to be visualized to be one composite whole and qualification of its individual partners cannot be ground for rejection of the technical bid if the joint venture as a whole satisfies all the conditions.
15. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the joint venture of the petitioner consisted of Mr. Abhay kumar Sinha, M/s Teekey Management & M/s Pragati Engineering Industrial Services having contribution 50%, 25% & 25% respectively. There were four components of operation 7 and maintenance which has been mentioned in clause 4.5 of instructions to bidders, which were related to water treatment plant, elevated service reservoir, pump motor and pipeline. Out of the four criteria, the lead partner of the joint venture M/s Abhay Kumar Sinha qualified so far as the criteria relating to pipeline and elevated services reservoir is concerned, far as the M/s Teekey Management is concerned, it qualified only in connection with water treatment plant and had no experience so far as water treatment plant, pump motor or pipeline is concerned. The 3rd partner M/s Pragati Engineering Industrial Services qualified only in connection with pump motor and had no experience in connection with water treatment plant, elevated service reservoir and pipeline.
16. She submits that as per clause 4.4 of instructions to bidders, there is specific requirement that the joint venture partner would be limited to 3 including the lead partner. She further submits that the qualifying criteria for joint venture has been mentioned in clause 4.4.4 which under sub clause-(a), provides that the joint venture should collectively satisfy the various criteria mentioned in clause 4.4.4 (a) (i) to (v). The same clause 4.4.4 further provides that the lead partner is required to satisfy the criteria as mentioned in clause 4.4.4 (b) and other partners are required to satisfy the criteria mentioned in clause 4.4.4.(c).
17. She submits that the qualifying criteria for the joint venture included not only qualifying criteria of joint venture as a whole but also the qualifying criteria of individual participating members of the joint member which included the lead partners as well as other two partners. She submits that if the other two partners do not satisfy the qualifying criteria independently, then the joint venture, itself, was not qualified to participate in the bid and accordingly the individual partner of the joint venture did not satisfy the qualifying criteria as per 8 the bid document. Therefore the bid has been rejected on technical ground, although the joint venture as a whole qualified all the requirements. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 (Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.) Paragraphs - 22, 26, 28, 33 and 34 to explain the scope of judicial review in tender matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She has relied upon (2012) 8 SCC 216 paragraphs 19 to 24 (Michigan Rubber India Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.) on the point that the Government should have free hand in setting the terms of tender. She has also relied upon (2008) 16 SCC 215 (Siemens Public Communication Networks Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) paragraphs -36, 38 and 40 to submit that the requirements of the bid documents are to be strictly adhered to and the principles of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of commercial transactions. She relied on (1995) (1) SCC 478 paragraph -23 to show that corporate veil is required to be lifted and the experience has to be taken into consideration of the independent persons who are participating in the joint venture and there is no such bar.
18. Before entering into the merits of the matter it would be useful to quote the relevant clauses of instructions to bidders. The clause 4.4.1 ; 4.4.4; 4.5 A ; 26.1 which are quoted herein below for ready reference:-
"4.4.1. Joint Venture partners would be limited to three (including the lead partner) 4.4.4. Qualifying criteria for Joint Venture will be permitted for projects costing any amount Joint Venture must comply with the following requirements:-
a) The Joint Venture must satisfy collectively the criteria for this purpose the following data of each member of the Joint Venture may be added together to meet the collective qualifying criteria.9
i) Annual Turn over (Cl. 4.5 (A) (a) of ITB)
ii) Particular O & M Experience. (Cl. 4.5 (A) (b) of ITB)
iii) Personal Capabilities. (Annexure II)
iv) Equipment Capabilities. (Annexure I)
v) Financial Capabilities [Cl.4.3 (g) & Cl. 4.3 (h) of ITB]
b) The Lead Partner shall meet the following qualifying criteria in proportion to the partnership in JV but not less than 50%.
i) Annual Turnover. (Cl. 4.5 (A) (a) of ITB)
ii) Particular O & M Experience. (Cl. 4.5 (A) (b) of ITB)
iii) Financial Capabilities. (Cl. 4.3 (g) & 4.3 (h) of ITB)
c) Other partner shall meet the following qualifying criteria in proportion to the partnership in JV but not less than 25%.
i) Annual Turnover (Cl. 4.5 (A) (a) of ITB)
ii) Particular O & M Experience. (Cl. 4.5 (A) (b) of ITB
iii) Financial Capabilities (Cl. 4.3. (g) & 4.3 (h) of ITB) 4.5.A. To qualify for award of the contract, each bidder in its name should have in the any of last five years as referred to in Appendix.
(a) The contractor/firm must have achieved a minimum annual financial turnover of Rs.328.50 lakh (in all classes of Civil, Mechanical & Electrical Works) in any one year of last five financial year.
(b) The contractor/firm must have satisfactorily completed at least single O & M work of similar nature magnitude & complexity of value not less than Rs. 328.50 lakh as a prime contractor.
(c) Tenderer must have experience of execution of maintenance work in any one year in last five years, the minimum quantities of the items of work as indicated below:-
i) WTP - 19.25 MLD (For Singly WTP)
ii) ESR - 1050 m3 (For Single ESR)
iii) Pump - motor - 670 HP (For Single Pump Motor)
iv) Pipeline - 100mm to 1000mm dia - 130 kms (For Single Scheme) 10 (Note : - Clause 4.5 (c) has been set after re-visiting the Terms and condition of the tender as per decision taken in the meeting of The Tender committee held on 14-06-2017 in the office of the Engineer in chief)
(d) The contractor or his identified sub-contractor should possess required valid electrical license for executing the building electrification works and should have experience for execution of maintenance work of similar electrical works.
(e) The contractor or his identified sub-contractor should possess required valid license for maintenance of the water supply engineering works.
26. Examination of Bids and Determination of Responsiveness 26.1 During the detailed evaluation of "Technical Bids", the Employer will determine whether each Bid meets the eligibility criteria defined in Clause 3 and 4; (b) has been properly signed; (c) is accompanied by the required securities and; (d) is substantially responsive to the requirements of the Bidding documents. During the detailed evaluation of the "Financial Bid", the responsiveness of the bids will be further determined with respect to the remaining bid conditions, i.e., priced bill of quantities, technical specifications, and drawings.
19. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner on account of following facts and reasons:-
a) This Court finds that in the instructions to bidders, clause-4.4 deals with the qualifying criteria of the joint venture.
b) Clause 4.4.1 provides that the joint venture partners would be limited to three (including the lead partner). It clearly provides that the joint venture must satisfy collectively the criteria mentioned in clause 4.4.4(a), but at the same time it also provides regarding satisfaction of individual criteria as mentioned in clause 4.4.4 (b) and 4.4.4.(c). In absence of joint venture being able to show that they satisfy the criteria for 11 participation in the bid jointly as well as in individual capacity, it cannot be said that the joint venture qualifies under clause 4.4.4 of instructions to bidders. Clause-26 of the instructions to bidders deals with examination of bids and determination of responsiveness. Clause 26.1 of instructions to bidders provides that during the detailed evaluation of technical bids the employer will determine whether each bids meets the eligibility criteria defined in clause-3 & 4 of instructions to bidders.
c) Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that only the fact that joint venture qualifies as a whole has to be taken into consideration and individual criteria as mentioned in clause 4.4.4(b) & 4.4.4 (c) is not to be taken into consideration, is hereby rejected. As instructions to bidders clearly provides qualifying criteria for joint venture, it was certainly open to the State to provide criteria for individual persons in the joint venture also. This Court further finds that the individual criteria which has been provided by instructions to bidders are not under challenge in this writ petition. This Court further finds that these individual criteria are not contrary to any of the judgments which has been relied upon by the petitioners. None of the judgments which has been relied upon by the petitioner holds that any qualifying criteria which has been laid down in instructions to bidders in connection with individual partners of joint venture has to be ignored and only the collective satisfaction of the criteria has to be considered. This Court further finds that providing qualifying criteria for individual participating partners in joint venture is not oppose to any public policy and there is no material on record to hold the same to be oppose to public policy. Rather, it appears that if the individual in the joint venture also have to satisfy certain criteria that will be in furtherance of public interest. The interest of the public is paramount and merely because parties have entered into and formed joint venture their interest cannot be 12 supreme and the conditions mentioned in instructions to bidders cannot be ignored. The terms which has been stressed by the counsel for the petitioner i.e., the collective satisfaction of criteria and collective qualifying criteria as mentioned in clause 4.4.4(a) has certainly be taken into consideration and the same is not in conflict with the individual criteria which has been mentioned in clause 4.4.4(b) and 4.4.4(c) rather they are to be read in addition to collective qualifying criteria. It is admitted position on record that Abhay Kumar Sinha being lead partner has qualified only in connection with two of the components and M/s Teekey Management qualifies only in one components and M/s Pragati Engineer Industrial Services qualifies only in one component out of the four components. M/s Teekey Management has nil experience so far as other three components are concerned and M/s Pragati Engineer Industrial Service has also nil experience so far as the remaining three components are concerned and accordingly the requirement of 25% as mentioned in clause-4.4.4(c) is not satisfied by the two partners who are holding 25% stakes each in the joint venture. In such circumstances the petitioner in the capacity of joint venture was not satisfying the qualifying criteria itself, although jointly they might be satisfying the collective criteria and on account of this the technical bid submitted by the joint venture has been rightly rejected. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in connection with the rejection of technical bid of the joint venture.
d) So far as the judgment reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 is concerned, this Court finds that at para - 22 that the credentials in connection with past experience was to be submitted after the tender has been considered and accordingly a tender in the said case was not liable to be excluded from consideration on the ground of non-eligibility on account of past experience. In such circumstances it was held that the decision of tender 13 evaluation committee to exclude the joint venture from consideration was not warranted by the terms and conditions of submission of tender. The Court further held that it means that the matter of past experience has to be considered after tenderer has otherwise been found suitable for acceptance and the tender is not liable to be rejected at the threshold without consideration on the ground that the tenderer lacks experience.
e) In the instant case the petitioner in the capacity of joint venture has failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria itself and as the bid document in this case has a particular eligibility criteria for participation in the tender therefore in absence of the pre- condition of satisfying the eligibility criteria this Court finds that the technical bid of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondents. In the aforesaid case which has been relied upon by the petitioner which is reported in 1995 (1) SCC 478 there was no such eligibility criteria prescribed for the joint venture as has been prescribed in the instant case. Accordingly this judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner. In 1995 (1) SCC 478 at para 26 it has been held that once it is held that NHL is a joint venture as claimed by it in the tender, the experience of various constituents has to be taken into consideration. In the instant case the petitioner along with its partners do not constitute a joint venture as per the conditions of tender and accordingly the technical bid of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.
f) So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12065 of 2016 decided on 15.05.2017 (M/s CRRC Corporation Ltd. Vs. Metro link Express for Gandhi Nagar and Ahmedabad (Mega) Company ltd.) is concerned , this court finds that from perusal of para 40 of the said judgment it is clear that the adjudication in the said case was confined to the issue of disqualification of the appellant on the ground of experience on the touchstone of clause 2.4 of the 14 eligibility and qualification criteria of the tender document which is quoted in para 32 of the said judgment and upon its perusal it is apparent that there was no eligibility criteria prescribed in connection with the partners of the joint venture. In the instant case as per clause-3 & 4 of instructions to bidders there is eligibility criteria for the different partners of the joint venture. Therefore, this judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner.
g) The eligibility criteria for participation as a joint venture with certain eligibility criteria of its partners also which has been prescribed in clause-3 & 4 of instructions to bidders has not been challenged by the writ petitioner and this Court finds no illegality in such eligibility criteria so as to read it down or to ignore it completely as submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. This Court further finds that eligibility criteria as has been prescribed in clause-3 & 4 of instructions to bidders by the respondents is not contrary to any of the decisions which has been cited by the petitioner.
h) This Court further finds that the petitioner has made allegations that the bid of the petitioner has been rejected in order to favour a third party. However neither the name nor any details have been mentioned in the writ petition, accordingly such allegation are vague in such circumstances the allegation in connection with the favouring any particular is hereby rejected. This Court further finds that none of the bidders were declared successful and accordingly it cannot be said that in order to favour any particular person the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected.
i) So far as the point regarding participation of the petitioner in the earlier bid as a joint venture and non-rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner as joint venture is concerned, this Court finds that there is no detail as to who the partners in the earlier joint venture were and what their criteria 15 was. This Court further finds that as per para - 10 of the writ petition joint venture which is involved in this case i.e., amongst the petitioner, M/s Teekey Management and M/s Pragati Engineering Industrial Services has been constituted by joint venture agreement only on 09.10.2017 and the instant bid was the first bid which they had participated as joint venture. There is nothing on record that this particular joint venture had earlier participated and their technical bid was accepted. Otherwise also admittedly for last four bids there was no successful bidder ultimately declared and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to take any advantage of acceptance of their technical bid in the capacity of joint venture what so ever be the component of the joint venture participating in the earlier bids.
j) This Court finds that in case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 the limitations regarding scope of judicial review particularly with reference to tender matters has been laid down. This judgment has been followed in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 5 SCC 462 and it has been held at para 64.3 as follows:-
"64.3. it is not open to the court to independently evaluate the technical bids and financial bids of the parties as an appellate authority for coming to its conclusion inasmuch as unless the thresholds of mala fides, intention to favour someone or bias, arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity are met, where a decision is taken purely on public interest, the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint."
65. ..........
k) This Court does not find that any of the criteria which has been laid down in the aforesaid judgments is satisfied in this case so as to exercise power in Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16l) Further this court is of the considered view that the terms of instructions to bidders cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous and they must be given a meaning and a necessary significance. In the instant case terms of instructions to bidders regarding the qualifying criteria of joint venture as well as its constituent partners cannot be ignored as has been argued by the petitioner and this Court does not find any material to hold the said qualifying criteria as arbitrary or against public policy. This is over and above the fact that petitioner has not challenged the qualifying criteria contained in clause-3 & 4 of instructions to bidders. The petitioner has participated in the tender fully knowing that the joint venture does not meet the qualifying criteria contained in clause-3 & 4 of instructions to bidders. This court does not find any arbitrariness or irrationality in the decision or the decision making process.
20. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated: 04.07.2018 Saurav/AFR