f^ C o^i ...ff^^s^ SitiiU IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATOR6 AT BILASPUR, (C.G.) r\^ ...-•"'<"^ ^s^^ Cc^ s-/0^ ^€^..- W.P^No. /2006 '^:.^ ^<6^.--'"" PETITS^IER: ^ CI India Pvt. Ltd. Through its authorized signatory, Mr.Prem Mohan,(S/OShriR.M.Prasad, Aged about 33 Years),Having its Registered office at D-5, Defence Colony,New Delhi VERSUS RESPONDENTS </"1. ^2. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Chief Secretary Mantralaya,D.K.S.Bhawan,Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Infotech & Biotech Promotion Society (CHiPS)Govt. of Chattisgarh. R.D.A. Building,Raipur, (C.G.) NexTenders (India) Pvt. Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act Having its registered office at "Yuchit", Juhu Tara Road,Mumbai, Maharashtra /4. Wipro Limited ^ ^[u" ^ Having its ' Registered office at ,1. <-?^ Doddakannelti, Sarjapur Road Bangalore - 560035, Karnataka PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITOTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF Mi^NDAMCJS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- ^^ A ^.^^ .^^^>' ^&^., .\° 1€5 y .V ^;KiM D.B. BIGH COtfRT OF CHHATTIBaJUtH AT EILASPTTR HON. 8HRI JCSTXCEVIJAY KUMAR 8maVA8TAVA& HOBT. sina JxrsTicE DBIREBDRA MISHRA PE'nTlONBgt p WRIT PETITION ( C ) Be. 8104/2006 ClIndiaPvt.Ltd Throu^iits authorized sigaatory, Mr. Prem Mohaa, (8/0 Shri R.M. Prasad, aged about 33 years) having its r^istered offiee at D-5, Defence Colony, New Dethi. VER8U8 RE8PORDEHT8 State ofCUhattisgarh and others O R D B R FOR COVSTDERAtIOS Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HOH'ffi.E^HRI JC8TI<a VUAY KCTBARSHRIVASTAVA, J .EA - ^V— ! • Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge j=^f>ntj>^ PQ8T FOR ORDER OH -< JAireARY 2007 /y Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^s-^ ^:^^^^' ^. mOH COURT OF CHHATnSGARB AT BILASPUR D.B. HOR. 8HRI JU8TICE VUAY KUMAR SHMVASTAVA & HQH, SHRI JVQTlCEUaSRX.SDRA MI8HRA WRIT PETITION ( C ] Ho. 5104/2006 PEHTITIOHER RESPOHDENT8 ClIndiaPvt.Ltd Through its aufhorized signatory, Mr. Prem Mohan, (S/0 SIiri R.M. Prasad, aged about 33 years) havlng its r^istered office at D-5, Defeuce Colony, NC(P DeUa. •VEXtSVQ State of Chhattisgarh and oftiers. L.- Present; Mr. Wvek Tankha leamed Sr. Advocate wlfh. Mr. Munish Malhotra & Ms. Sunita Jain for fhe petitioner. Mr. Prashant Mishra leamed Additional Advocate Geaeral for State. Mr. V.R. Tiwari learned counsd for respondent No.3. Mr Sanjay K. Agrasyal wifh Mr. Sourabh Sharma, leamcd aaunsel for respondent No. 4. ORDBR (Passedon d 1-2-2007) Per Dhlreadra Mishra. J By fhis pettdon fhe pedtloner is challeagtag fhe action ofthe respondents 1 aad 2 whereby they have aUowed fhe respondeats 3 and 4 to participate in fhe teader prooess despite fhe fact fhat fhey do not qualify for the same and they are intending to issue letter of intent/purchase order in their favour. 2. The State of Chhattisgarh assigned fhe respondeat No.2 the responsibUity for permitting own technology systcm withm fhe Iv" \ State Goverrmient and arrangmg procuiemeHt own techuology retated material for whole of fhe State. Respondeut Wo.2 to miplenient the e-procuremeut, floated fce tender wde advcrtisement dated 20.2.2006 in which 6 parties includmg the pedtioner and respondeuts 3 & 4 participated. The tcnder was to be opened in fhiee parts (i) Pre-quali&caticai (ii) Techtucal and (ni) Haancial. 3. The relevant portion ofAmiexure P-2, clause 4.5.2 fhe pre- quaUfication criteria for fhe purpose of controversy itivolved in fhis pedtion is reproduced as under: "Considering fhe wide wariety of sldUs and resources needed to implem.eut fhe Erocuremcut Projeet, a consorduin of eoinpatues (m.asdm.um of 2) may bid for fhe project. One offhe luembcrs ofthe consortium should act as the Prfme Bidder and shall be responsible to CHIPS for discharging of all responsibiUties related to fhe Bid finatization and project (if sdected as fhe veador). The ofher meuibers oftheConsordumor Group shaU be ealled as sub- contractors. The Prfme Bidder should subinit aU the bids. The pre- qualiEication criteria or fhe participating ludders are as ghren below: In case of consortium. bids, (he nuruber of consortiuin meinbers shall not exceed 2. The owner of the e-Procuremeat appUcation proposed to be deployed ui fhe project should be one of fhe necessary partners ofthe consortium . The pwner ofthe e-procurem.en.t apElication shoirid be a SEI- CMMlCTreL3 ceTtifiedCpiapany. 2. Ttie grievance of fhe petitioner is fhat the petitioner, the owner of thc e-procurement appUcation with prinic bidder m Ltd -jp. t^ ^ V.- \-i '^.. participated in fhe teader process along wifh 5 other participants namdy Tech. Mataindra Ltd. + SAP (fadia) Pvt. I»td,(coasortium), Stock Holdmg Carporatlon of Indla Ltd. + WEB3M India Pvt. Ltd. (consortium.), ITI Ltd. + Cl India Pvt. Ltd. (consortium), Raipur Rotocast Ltd + Antares Systeai Ltd. (consortium), Wipro Ltd. + NexTenders (Indla) Pvt. Ltd. Consortium and Bai Infosystaa (tadia) Pvt. Ud. At the pre-qualification stage fhe respondents 3 and 4 were short listed even fhough respondent No.3 - fhe owner of the e-prociirement appUcation proposed to be deployed waa not SEI- CMM level 3 certified compaay aad fherefore it could uot fce considered for fhe purpose of present tenders and respondents 3 aad 4 could not be short listed in the said process. The ofher short listed company apart from fhe consortiiun of respondents 3 aad 4 were the petitioner and ffae ITI Ltd and SAI Infosystem (Indla) Pvt. Ltd + Applitech Solutions Ltd. Tlie ofher participants namelyTech. Mahindra Ltd aad SAP (Indla) Pvt. Ltd. (consortium) as weB as M/S Raipur Rotocast Ltd along with M/S Aatares System Ltd (consortium) were rejected by the respondeat No.2 on fMs groi.uud alonc considering the requu'emeiit of SEI-CMM level 3 certificate fhe m.andatory condition for participatmg in fhe teo.der process. 3. The further grievauce of the pedtioner is fhat as soon as it came to fheir notice that fhe respandents 3 and 4 have been short listed after pre quaUfication, vide letter dated 30.7.2006 (Annexurc P-3), fhcy apprised fhe respondents 1 and 2 fhat respondents 3 and 4 (consortiuin) are not qualified to participate in the teiida- process as fhey dld not fu1fl11 fhe prescribed digibitity cnteria and fr ). ^^ earUer also fhey wcre disqualified by tiie Govermueat of Kamataka iu fhe month of May 2006 on fhe same ground. The above objection was considered ia the meeting dated 31.7.2006. Eiapowered Coininittee and the respondents 1 and 2 proceeded further ia opening teahDlcal bid of rcspoadents 3 and 4 wifh otfaer short Usted parties. 4. In their retum the respondent No.2 has ccaitended fhat e- procuiement development actnaty •was iaitiated in the moafh of March 2005 as per the National e Govemance Plaa coaccived 'ky fhc Governmeat of India aud identifled as a Mission Mode Project (MMI^. For fhe purpose of poUcy decisions in rdation to implemeaitation of the Project, the Govenuueat of Chhattisgarh had constituted au Empowared Conuiuttce (EC), consisting of 14 senlor officers wlfh Chief Secretary as Chairman. After extensive ground work detailed request for proposal (RFI^ was prepared for the warious actnaties to be uadertaken by the G(?verBment, The bid process actitvity conunenced froni 21.2.2006, Bids were to be submittcd upto 29.5.2006 upto 16 hours and the pre qualification bids were opeaed at 17 hours on fhe same day. Th.e evaluation of fhe pre-qualification bids was done on 31.7.2006 after certification on prequalification bids by fhe empowered conunittee. On the same day fhe affidavits from fhe bidders were sought, 3ri Meettng of the Bid Evaluation Coimnittee was conveaed on 11.8.2006 and en fhat date fhe names of fhe pre quaUfied bidders were declared. Declaration oftechmcaUy quaUfied bidders was made on 25.8.2006 and on that date comaiercial bids were also opened. On 29,8.2006 4 -/ ^ Empowered Comiaittee gave its decision on technical and coiuniercial bids and fhereafter letter of i&tent was issued on 4.9.2006. Issue raised by the petitloner wifh respect to pre qualificatiou of fhe Wpro - Nextender, fhe respondents 3 and 4 herdn, was ineticulously examiaed by the Empowared Committee on 31.7,2006 in the presence of fhc represeutathres of the participants/ teaderers mcluding the peytioner and after considering fhe affidavits filcd on behaff of respondeats 3 and 4 the emponrercd conuuittee was satisfied fhat fhe responderrts 3 and 4 were quaUfied to paridcipate in the tendcr process, upon submlssion of affidavits r^arding ownership of ftie entire e- procurement appUcation to be deployed in the Ckwermnait of ChhatUsgarh, It was furfher decided that if fhe infonnation provided in fhe af&davit is found untruc at any stage, the consortiiau of respondents 3 and 4 shaU be suininarily disqualified from fhc e-procurement bid evaluatlon process. 5. The respondents 3 and 4 in fhelr separate reply have categoricaBy taken a stand that consortium of respondents 3 and 4 meets the pre quali&cation criteria as fhe respondent No.4 is SEI- CMM levet 5 certified company. Apart from. the aboive assertion aU fhe three respondeuts have submitted prdiminary objections to fhe effect that the petition suffers from latches of dday. The evaluation of pre qualification bid was undcrtaken on 11.8.2006 vide Amiexure R-4 and on fhe basis of afBdavits of respondents 3 and 4 they were held to be qualified to pardcipate in fhe teoder process. Thereafter technical bid was considered on 25.8.2006 and respondaits 3 aud 4 were found to be technicatly qualified ftn- opening of eommercial bid and fhereafter conauercial bid was opaaed on 29.8.2006 vide Annexure R-6 and considerii^ the ratas quoted by rcspondents 3 and 4 which was Rs. 2.38 crores lcss fhan titie rate offered by fhe.petitiener, fhe offisr of respondent No.3 was approved and thereafter fhe instant petition has been ffled on 13.9.2006 after bdng unsuccessful ia the teuder prooess. 6. The ]TI Ltd is fhe prime bidder. As per clayse 4.5.2 of fhe pre qualification critena, Ittme Bidder is resp&nsible to CHIPs Soi discharging of responsibiUty rdated to l>id finalization and Project (if selected as the veador) aad ofher niembers of the censcatiuin w groups shaU be tenned as sub contractors. Thc bid is to be submitted by the pritne bidder. However, the prfme bidder has accepted the decisi(ai of the respondents 1 aad 2 in twldm^ the respondents 3 and 4 as pre quaUfied bidder, and fhc instant petition ffled at fhe instaace of the sub oontractor is not maintainable; 7. We have heard counsel for the parties aud perused the niaterial available on record. 8. The objcction raised by fhe petitioner agaiast th.e pre quaUfication of respondents 3 and 4 to pardcipatc iu fhe teaider process niay be stMnniarizcd as under; (a) The respondent No.3 - NesxTenders (ladia) Pvt. Ltd is fhe owner of e-procurenient application proposed to be deployed whcreas respondent No.4 is theprime bidder. As per clause 4.5.2 the owaer of fhe e-procuremeat appUcation should be a SEI-CMM level 3 eertified com.pany. However, fhe respondeut No.3 does not posscss fhe above certification aad therefore, consortium. of respondents 3 and 4 were not qualified. (b) Considering fhe above criteria niandatory for gartlcipating in fhe tender process, the respondeuts No. l aad 8 disqualifled the ofher participaats. (c) The petitionar as a membcr of consertium disputed ffae affidaMts of Armexures R-2 and R-3 swam by representatives ofrespondents 3 and 4 wherrin they have stated that Wipro Ltd. Is fhe sole, undlsputed and absolute owner of fhe uiteUectual property rights of the e- procuremeat appUcation deployed by Wipro in Munlcipal Corporation Dethl aad fhe other latcst versions proposed to be deployed ia the Gcwenuuent of Chhatdsgarh under fhe aforesald tenderers. The pctitinier is basing hls chaUenge to fhe above affidavits on fhe service agreenient betwcen respondents 3 and 4 of Annexure P-8 dated 22.3.2005 •which shows that fhey share omna-slup of mteUectuat property in fhe deploymeat of E6PS by Wipro in Municlpal Corporation Ddlu. Annexure P-10, web site ofthe Rcspondent No.4 shows fhe respoadent No,3 as the owner of Tools and Technology of e-procureuient application customized in Municipal Corporation, DeUri. The offer of M/s Wipro Ltd was rejected by fhe Go'wsrruneat of Karnataka on fhe sole ground fhat it does nothaveits own soflware. (d) In 2006 in an arbitration proceeding before the Ex Chief Justice of India, fhe respondent No.3 ffled an affidavit fhat he owns the intetlectual property ri^its whereas in fhe present case an untrue affidavit has been. sworn by respondents 3 and 4 fhat ownership of fhe c-procurement appUcation stauds transferred to fhe respondcnt No.4 as per fhe agrcement betw^een fhem.. (e) Even after taldng decision vide Annexure R-l fhat the respondeut No.4 to submit affidavit without any qualtfi.cation fhat he is sole and undisputed owner of fhe entire e-procureanent application to be deployed in Qovemment of Chhattisgarh, respoadeats 1 aad 2 have acted upon the affidavits of Annexures R-2 and R-3 wifhout any independent verification despite iaconsisteacies mentioned heremabows have beea brought to thdr notice. 9. On the ofher hand fhe subinission of fhe respondeats in fhis regard is fhat fhe decision on fhe above objections offhe pedtioner was considered fhreadbare aad thereafter it was dedded fhat fhe respondeats No, 3 and 4 be asked to submit fhe affidavit wifh respect to fhe owiiership of fhe entire e- procureniait appUcation proposed to be deployed ia Govermnent of Ghhattisgarh, and if fhe above affidavits are found to be untrue, consortium shaU be suininarily disqualiBed t.'1 from bid evaluation process and wifh fhis pre eondition respondents 3 and 4 were treated as quali&ed on pre quali&cation criteria subject to satisfactory afSdavit. 10. After fhe above dccision fhe respondent No.3 has cat^oricaUy stated ia its affidavit that Wipro Ltd is the sole and undisputed owner aad NT has royatty free Ucencing rights from TOpro Ltd to exploit fhe intetlectual property rights of fhe e- procureinent sottwaie deployed in. Muiucipal Corporation, Dethi and proposed to be deployed in Goveram.ent of CUhatdsgarh. In its affidavit dated 19.6.2006 fhe respondent No.4 has stated ideutical facts and has furftier referred to an agreement betweeu TOpro and NTeffective fi-om 31,3.2005 reBerred fo as (amendm.ent to the a.11iance agreanent) whereby NT has agreed to assiga. to 'Wfipro for a consideration, recdpt ofwhitdi has beai ackuowledged, the IPRS of the modiiles dcveloped or under developaient by eifher party (wAether stand alone or int^rated ia any m.anner or form as a solution) of fhe AUiance's proposed version 2 Electronic Govemxnent Procurerueait System. (EOPS) and by fhis ag-eement it has been categorically agreed that aU fhe rights, title and interest ia IPRS of viersion 2 of the EGP8 as per fhe Schedule set out in clause 6 bdow, uicludmg any enhaticement/custoiiuzations fhereofinade by either party shaU henceforth be assigaed exclusivisly to Wipro and governed by amended clause 4.1 ofthe C-L ^reeiuent. 11. There is no dispute that intellectiial property r^hts of fhe e-procurement appUcation inay be assigaed by its developer 10 t.' r> to a third party aud there is no spedfic inodc of effecting such assigrtments and fh.e sam.e can. be done by way of agreement. In the iastaat case, fhe objection of the petitioner wifti respect to the pre qualification ofrespondeats 3 and 4 to particlpate iu fhe tender was based on allegations fhat respondeut No.3 is the owner of fhe e-procurement appUcation who adnrittedly docs not possess SEI-CMM level 3 certi&cates, Respondent No, 4 is not fhe' owner. Respondents 1 and 2 have accepted the aESdavits of fhe rcspondents 3 and 4 and have recorded tiidr satisfaction that respondent No,4 Wipro Ltd is fhe owner of e- procuranent appUcation aad it is also possessed of SEI-CMM levd 5 certificate which is much UghCT than fhe pre qualification prescribed in fhe present tender process. It has been stated ia fhe affidavits by bofh the parties i.e. respondents 3 and 4 that fhe respondcnt No.4 is the owner which has aot been disputed by respondent No.3. The above asserdon is based on agreement between fhe two for consideration. The whole exercise of considering the objectioas of the pettdoaer was done in the preseace of the pedtioncr in the nieeting of the empowered committee hdd on 31.7.2006. The above assa'tion ia the af&davits also finds support frcnm the senrice agreement of Annexure P-8 dated 22.2.2005 filcd by fhe petitioner hinisdf wherdn the respondent No.3 in pursuance of fhe agreement has esqiressed its No Objection for Wipro Ud asserting the ownership rights in the inteB.ectual property of fhe BGPS for fhe effective deploymeut of EGPS by TOpro in Mturicipal Corporation of Delhi and its Dhrision/Associates or ia any 11 '•-./ department of fhe State Govecmaent of Ddhi. Subsequcat to this agreement respondcnts 3 and 4 have referred to the E^reement entered into betwcen fhem whereas the IPRs ia e- procurement appUcation has becn assigaed by NeiiTeaders to Wipro Ltd for consideration. Apart froni this respondent No. 1 has also field a certi&cate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Dethi aloitg wifh its additional retuca as Armcxure R-9 ia which M/s Wipro Ltd has been shown as fhe owner ofversion 2 of fhe software suppUed and iustalled and workiag coinmercially in the Municipal Corporation of DeBu. 12. It is a setfled law fhat principle ofjudldal review wrould apply to the exercise of contractual powers by fhe Goverruneat bodies in order to prevent arbitrariaess or favouriti.sm. However, fhere are iaherent lunitations iu exercise of fhat power of judicial review. Governm.ent is fhe guardian of tfae finances of fhe State. It is expected to protect fhe financial interest of fhe State. The right to rduse fhc lowest or auy other tender is ahyays available to fhe Govenunent. But, the principies laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to fce kept in wew while acceptir^ or refusing a teader. Thcre can be no questicu of inftitigem.etit of Article 14 of the constitution of India if the Govenmient tries to get fhe best person or fhe best quotatien, 13. In the matter of Tata Cellular V«. Vnion of India reported In (19941 6 SCG 681 the Supreme Court has hdd fhus: 12 fc/ "77. The duty of the Court is to confine itsetf to the question ofl^ality. Its concemed shouldbe : 1. Whefher a decision-makiag authori.ly Qtceeded its powers? 2. Committed aa error of law^, 3. coiuaritted a breach of the rulcs of naturaljustice, 4, reached a decision which no reasonablc tribunal would have reached or, 5. abuscdits powers, Therefore, it is not for fhe court to determuie whefh.er a particular poUcy or particular decision taken in the fulEUmeut of that pnlicy is fair. It is ordy concerncd wifh ffae manaer ia which those decisions have beea taken. The esrtent of fhe duty to act fairly witl vary from. case to case. Shortly put, fhe grounds upon which an admiuistrative action is subject to contrcd byjudicaal review can be classifled a,s under; (a) Dlegality; This meaus the decisioa-maker must iinderstand correcfty fhe law that regulates his decision- makiag power and ittust pve effect to it. (b) In'atLcuiality,namely,Wednesburyi.uu'easonatoleaess. (c) Procedural uupropriety." In fhe abovemeationed fhe Supraue Court has further held that: "94. The prindples deducible from. fhe above are; (1) The action m.odem trend poiats to judidal restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews tfae mauner io. which tiie decision was m.ade. (3) The court does not have fhe aipertise to cca-rect fhc administrative decision. If a review of fhe administratrve decision is permitted it wffl be 13 f- t- substituting its own decision, wifhout fhe necessary expertise wbich itsdf m.ay be faUible. (4) The teFBis of the invitation to tender cannot be to judlcial scrutiny because the iavitation to teader is id thc realm of contract. Nonaally speakmg, fhe decision to accept fhe tender or award the contract is reached by process of n%otiations fhrough several tiers. More ofteu than not, Such deeislons are made qualitativeily by experts. (5) The Goverrunen.t must havefreedom ofcontract. In other words, a fair play lu thejoints is a necessary concomitant for an administrattve body ftinctiomng in an admimstrathre sphere or quasi administrative sphere. Howewsr, fhe decision must not only be tested by fhe appUcation of Wednesbury pruiciple or reasonableness (including its ofher facts pointed out above) but nmst bc free fram arbitranncss not affected by bias or actuated by inala fides. (6) Quaslimg decisions m.ay iinpose heayy adniinistratnre burden on the admiaisteation and lead to iucreased and unbudgeted expenditure." 14. We shaU cxamine fhe present facts of this case based on above prmciples. The petitioner, fhe owner of e-procui'eiaent application iu associatton wlfh FTI Ltd - a Public Luuited Coinpany, prime bidder partidpated ia fhe tender process. Prunc bidder who is responsiblc to CHIPs towards their discharge of duties to respondents 1 and 2 has accepted fhe decision by not preferring any challenge. The pedtkiner who is a sub contractor has filed fhis petition solely on the grcnind fhat respondent No.3 is io. fact owner of fhe e-procurenient application aad tfae respondeat No.4 is not the owner. As per fhe prequallfication criteria fhe owner of e-procurement 14 i. \-i (-!- appltcation has to have SEI-CMM level 3 certificate ;and therefore, fhe consortium. ofthe respondents 3 and 4 together were not quaU&ed to participate in the tender proeess, This objeetion has been. conaidered tteeadbare in the Ught of fhc clanfication subinltted by fhc rcspondents 3 aud 4 through affidavits and after coasiderfng respondeat No.4 to be the owner, fhis consorthuu has bcea hdd to be quaUfied. 15. It is not in dispute fhat respondeats 3 and 4 as also fhe consortiuia of fhe ITI Ltd , the prime bidder and fhe petitioner were the only twro quaUfied participants in flie teader proceedm^s, It is also not in dispute fhat fhe offer given by fhe petidaner M was approxuuately 2 .5 tim.es inore than the rate ofFered by respondeats 3 aad 4, 16. The Supraue Court in fhe matter ofReliaace Airoort Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Msvwrt Authority of Indta reported ia JT 2006 (101 424 has considered fhe distinctioas in fhe parameters for judicial rcuien? in fhe inatter of contract for normal case oftenders and in fhe case of comniercial contracts. The rdevant paragraphs are reproduced as uaders "91 - It is poiated out by leamed couasel for the respondents fhat parameters for judicial rewenr arc diEFerent in fhe matters of caatract for normal case of teaders. la case of cominercial corrtracts fhe normal contractual inatters are excluded. It is pointed out fhat there is no ovawliehniag pubUc interest im/olwng such inatters. GETB bad only touched the faBacious approach of EC to niake the process trausparent. The view taken is a possible 15 view supported by reasons and there should not be any uiterference" "92 In fhe ultimate, fhe question would be wrhether in fhe process of selectian fhe Govenun.eut had adopted transparent and fair process." The subject niatter offhe present tender process also retates to conuaercial contracts and the empowered c<anmlttee has taken a decision by adopting transparait and fair process. 16. The decision of fhe empowered committee ia accepting fhe adEidavits of fhe respondents 3 and 4 is to be seen in fhe light of the fact that apart from prcsent pedtioner, respondent 3 and 4 were only fhc qualified bidders m case fhdr affidavits wereaccepted. Considering ffac abtwe contmgeacy it has been hdd by fhe Supreme Court ia the matter of Reliance Airpoft DeveSsyiers Pvt. ItdVs. AirpOft Aitfhority o/Atdfa (supra)1aas faeld thus: "95. JS the RPF was to consider at the final phase of evaluation fhere would be orily one bid for each of fhe airports. In that event, fhere would be no questlon of finding out dtfference bebnreen the various bids or compani^; bids. That left no option wifh the EGOM but to dfher vary RFP or toaward oae rf fhe airports to GMR and to cancel the process for fhe second or cancet the entire process. The lettcr course would not have beai iu larger pubUc iaterest. Therefiore, fhe EGOM exercised its opinion. 16 \- •< ('' "96. In final analysis, what the EGOM has done is to accept the report of EC subject to validation done by GETE." In fhe above judgfnent in paragraphs 97 aad 100 considermg fhe exteat of judicial rcuiew in fhe matters of relatiag to award of contract it has been held fhus : "97. The exteat of judicial reviCTr ia a case of this nature Tphere the testture canaot be inatchedwifh one relatuigto award of contract, the observations of fhis Court m Raunaq lutcniational Ltd. V. I.V.R.