Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

99. It is his contention that the fulcrum of the Respondent‟s case is that the BGR and NCC had some joint projects, and those joint projects have become the Petitioner‟s associate as per clause 2.2.4 of the RFB. Further, that once the Petitioners have become the Associate it is alleged that the Petitioners had access to each other for the reason that both the directors from either entity were getting represented over there. The alleged relationship between both the Petitioners is also existent with the Respondent No. 2 but it is said by the Opposite Party- MCL Ltd. that an enquiry was made into it upon which it was found that the project is completed. The said response of the MCL was responded by the Petitioner showing that the Petitioner and VPR Ltd.- OP No. 2 have an on-going project to which the OP No.1 had given no response which raises a doubt. Moreover, VPR Ltd.-OP No. 2 has responded that they had a consortium/ JV on the other hand the Petitioner-BGR has SPV with the other Petitioner-NCC Ltd.

139. The Learned Addl. Solicitor General contended that there is no whisper of allegation of "mala fides" in the pleadings of the petitioner- NCC Ltd.. However, in BGR case there is some reference to "Mala fides" which is vague totally. It is well settled that not only the pleading but proof is also required. Plea of mala fide is not at all sustainable, he argues.

140. In the present case, the authorities after evaluating the records found common shareholding, common signatories, common address, and common Directors. Applying the strict adherence to terms and conditions of the tender document they come to the conclusion that conflict of interest exists. Therefore, the rejection as justified in law. The contract has been given to a third party and work is going on.

We state that in view of the above mentioned clarification given by CCL, in the RFB dated 27.10.2023, the same would apply to our case also, as both NCC Limited and BGR Mining & Infra Limited have participated in the subject NIT in their individual capacity and that the SPVs have not participated in the said NIT.

It is further submitted that the Hon‟ble Orissa High Court in its order dated 19.12.2023 in W.P.(C) No.17188 of 2023 & W.P.(C) No.17120 of 2023 said that "determination or interpretation of the conditions stipulated in the tender documents, being within the complete domain of the tendering authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, this Court has got limited jurisdiction. Even if a defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must use its discretionary power under Article 226 with caution and circumspection. It should be exercised only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the basis of a legal point.