IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21 .01.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.Nos.16957, 16958, 17460, 17744, 20409, 23357, 23358 and 23795 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 and 3 of 2008 PSA ENNORE PTE. LTD. 460 ALEXANDRA ROAD, NO.38-00, PSA BUILDING, SINGAPORE 11996, REPRESENTED BY KENNY LOW ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. ..Petitioner in WP 16957/2008 and WP 16958/2008 TERMINAL INVESTMENT LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN GUERNSEY, HAVING CORPORATE HEAD QUARTERS AT NERINE HOUSE P.O. BOX 434 ST.GEORGES PLACE, ST.PETER PORT GUERNSEY-CHANNEL ISLANDS , AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT MSC HOUSE V FLOOR, ANDHERI (EAST) REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUMBAI-400 059. ..Petitioner in WP 17460/2008 SICAL INFRA ASSETS LIMITED (SIAL), REGISTERED OFFICE AT SOUTH INDIA HOUSE, NO.73, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI-1, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.S.R.RAMAKRISHNAN. ..Petitioner in WP 17744/2008 A.B.G. INFRALOGISTICS 5TH FLOOR, BHUPATHI CHAMBERS, 13, MATHEW ROAD, MUMBAI-400 004, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.BABU RAJEEV. ..Petitioner in WP 20409/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NEPTUNE ORIENT LINES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 456 ALEXANDRA ROAD, NOL BUILDING, SINGAPORE -119962 REP BY DIRECTOR ASHUTOSH KORNE, MUMBAI-400 050. ..Petitioner in WP 23357 and 23358/2008 SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD RANI SEETHAI HALL, NO.603, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-6, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SP.PALANIAPPAN. ..Petitioner in WP 23795/2008 -vs- UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1 PARLIAMENT ST., NEW DELHI-110001. ..1st Respondent in WP 16957,16958,20409, 23795/2008 ENNORE PORT LIMITED REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MD, ENNORE PORT LIMITED, NO.23, RAJAJI SALAI, FIRST FLOOR, CHENNAI-4. .2nd Respondent in WP 16957,16958,20409/2008 ENNORE PORT LIMITED ( A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P.T. LEE CHENGALVARAYA NAICKER MAALIGAI, 1 ST FLOOR NO.23 RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI 1. ..1st respondent in WP 17460, 23357 and 23358/2008 ENNORE PORT LIMITED REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, P.T. LEE CHENGALVARAYA NAICKER MAALIGAI, FIRST FLOOR, NO.23, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-1. ..1st Respondent in WP 17744/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ UNION OF INDIA LAW AND JUDICIAL AND JUSTICE DEPT., REP BY ITS SECRETARY, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 ..2nd Respondent in WP 17460,23357,23358/2008 THE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS) ENNORE PORT LIMITED, P.T. LEE CHENGALVARAYA NAICKER MAALIGAI, FIRST FLOOR, NO.23, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-1. ..2nd Respondent in WP 17744/2008 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR, PLAN FINANCE II DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. ..3rd Respondent in WP 16958 and 23795/2008 3. CONSORTIUM OF GROUP MARITIM TCB, REP. BY ITS LEAD MEMBER, EREDENE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, OFFICE NO.3, SARKAR HERITGAGE, KANE ROAD, BANDSTAND, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400 050. 4. CONSORTIUM OF NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, REP. BY ITS LEAD MEMBER, NYK LINE (INDIA) LTD., JESUS CALL HOUSE ANNEXE, II FLOOR, 28, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001, INDIA. 5. CONSORTIUM OF LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD AND JOHN KEELLS HOLDINGS PLC, REP. BY ITS LEAD MEMBER, LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, L & T HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, P.O.BOX 278, MUMBAI - 400 001. INDIA. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. CONSORTIUM OF STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, REP. BY ITS LEAD MEMBER, ..R3 TO R6 IN STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, IN WP.NO.20409 OF SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, 2008(R3 TO R6 NOT MADURAI BY PASS ROAD, NECESSARY AS PER T.V.PURAM PO., ENDORSEMENT BY TUTICORIN - 628 002 THE COUNSEL FOR TAMIL NADU, INDIA. PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2008) These Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus Prayer in WP.16957/2008: (i) to call for the records and quash the communication of the Second Respondent dated 30th June 2008 bearing EPL/OP/12.6/028 in not short listing the Petitioner for the bid stage and to consequently to direct the Second Respondent to reconsider the application made by the Petitioner. Prayer in WP.16958/2008: (ii) calling for the records of the Third Respondent and quashing clause 1.2.1, 2.2.1(c), 3.2.1, 3.2.6 of Model Request For Qualification for PPP Projects annexed to the GoI Guidelines dated December 5, 2007 bearing F.No.24(1)/PF.II/07 and consequently direct the Second Respondent to amend the Request for Qualification document dated March, 2008 and bearing No.EPL/BOT-4/2008. Prayer in WP.No.17460/08 (iii) calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the proceedings No.EPL/OP/12.6/028 dt 30th June, 2008 and No.EPL/OP/12.6/ 029 dt 1st July, 2008 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's application dt 19.5.2008 for qualification for development of container terminal at Ennore Port on Build, Operate and Transfer basis. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in WP.17744/08 (iv)calling for the records of the Respondents culminating in the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 30.6.08 bearing reference EPL/90/12.6/028 together with the corrigendum/errata dated 01.07.08 bearing reference EPL/OP/12.6/029 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to adhere to the EVALUATION PROCESS under clause 2(D) and the CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION under clause 3 contained in Tender-RFQ No.EPL/BOT-4/2008 for Development of Container Terminal at Ennore Port on Build, Operate, Transfer (BOT) basis by declaring the six companies with the first six highest experience scores as read out by the 2nd respondent in the opening of the Request for Qualification document on 20.5.2008 as eligible for participating in the financial bid for the Ennore Container Terminal project. Prayer in WP.20409/08 (v) calling for the records of Respondent No.2 culminating in impugned letter bearing reference EPL/OP.12.6/028 dated June 30, 2008 short listing Respondents 3 - 6 and quash the same and direct Respondent No.2 to reconsider the application of the Consortium dated May 20, 2008. Prayer in W.P.23357 of 2008: (vi) calling for the records and / or proceedings leading to the issuance of the communication EPL/OP/12.6/028 dated 30th June 2008 and / or the failure to short list the petitioner consortium for the RFP process and / or after examining the legality and / or propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same and be pleased to issue a direction, directing the 1st respondent to include the petitioners consortium in further consideration in the tender process at the RFP stage. Prayer in W.P.23358 of 2008: (vii) to issue a writ of declaration declaring that clause 2.2.1(c) of the RFP document is bad in law and/or unconstitutional and/or is liable to be set aside, insofar as it seeks to cover and/or deal with cases where foreign institutional investors, may directly or indirectly hold shares in a member of a rival consortium who have submitted bids . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in W.P.23795 of 2008 (viii) to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent in its Office Memorandum F.N.24(I)/ PF.II/07 dated 5th December, 2007 on the subject of Guidelines for Pre-Qualification of Bidders for Public Private Partnership (PPP) Projects and strike down Clause 4 therein as arbitrary and unconstitutional and also quash the consequential clauses 1.2.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.6 of the Request for Qualification document dated March 2008 issued by Respondent 2 as vague, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequentially quash the Letter issued by the respondent No.2 bearing No.EPL/OP12.6/028 dated 30.06.2008 and letter bearing No.EPL/OP/12,06/029 dated 1.7.2008 and consequently cause the Request for qualification document dated march, 2008 and bearing No.EPL/BOT-4/2008 issued by the Respondent No.2 to be amended and permit the petitioners consortium to be considered in the bidding process of the 2nd Respondent in its Tender for Development of Container Terminal at Enoore Port on a BOT basis. For Petitioners : Mr.Aravind Dattar, S.C., for Mr. Sivam Sivanandaraj for M/s.AZB and Partners (W.P.No.16957 & 16958 of 2008) Mr.AL.Somayaji, S.C., for Mr.V.Perumal (W.P.No.17460 of 2008) Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, S.C., for Ms.C.Uma (W.P.No.17744 of 2008) Mr.Aditya Bhat, for M/s.Arun Anbumani (W.P.No.20409 of 2008) Mr.P.S.Raman, S.C., for Mr/Satish Parasaran (W.P.Nos.23357 & 23358 of 2008) Mr.Rahul Balaji (W.P.No.23795 of 2008) For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravindran, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for Ennore Port Ltd. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, for R.1 in W.P.No.16957 & 16958 of 2008) Mr.A.Kalaiselvan, for R.1 & R.3 in (W.P.No.23795 of 2008) COMMON ORDER The petitioners in all these writ petitions question the act of the Ennore Port Limited in not shortlisting them for the next stage of bid that is RFQ stage and some challenging certain clauses in the tender forms. 2. The short matrix of the matter as put forth by the petitioner in W.P.No.17460 of 2008, in its affidavit filed in support of the petition, in nutshell, is set out here under:- 2.1. The petitioner is one of the members of the consortium by the name of India Terminal Consortium (herein after referred as the Consortium). The petitioner consortium members are reputed logistics service providers including International Port Operators. The Consortium members are (i) Terminal Investments Limited, (ii) Samsung C & T Corporation, (iii) Container Corporation of India, (iv) The Shipping Corporation of India, (v) Central Warehousing Corporation and (vi) Hind Terminals Private Limited. 2.2. On 07.03.2008, the first respondent floated Request for Qualification (RFQ) for development of Container Terminal at Ennore Port, on Build, Operate and Transfer basis (herein after referred as BOT), in order to shortlist competent applicants subject to national security clearance, who may be subsequently invited to bid for the project. The said RFQ document contains instructions to applicants and criteria for evaluation and project profile was available from the registered office of the first respondent upon submission of a demand draft in favour of the first respondent towards the cost of Request for Qualification document. The petitioner had paid the sum required by way of demand draft and after carefully gone through the RFQ document, had raised certain queries regarding certain terms and conditions of the said document and submitted written queries to the first respondent. The first respondent by its communication dated 04.04.2008 forwarded the amendments to the petitioner to the Request for Qualification document. The first respondent by proceedings dated 04.04.2008, had clarified the petitioner's queries during the pre-application conference held on 29.03.2008. Since the petitioner fulfils all the requirements, had submitted its application dated 19.05.2008 for pre-qualification for development of container terminal at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ennore Port on BOT basis on 20th May, 2008. 2.3. During the opening of the Bid on 20.05.2008, the Director, Operations of the first respondent read out the points secured by each of the Bidders. The petitioner had secured the third highest Eligibility Points amongst the participants. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a communication dated 30.06.2008 to the petitioner informing that the application for pre-qualification submitted by the petitioner had not been shortlisted for the next stage of bid, i.e., RFP stage as per clause 2.20.1. Thereafter, on 01.07.2008, the first respondent sent another letter clarifying that the communication dated 30.06.2008 be read as "this notification is in accordance with clause 2.21.1 of Request for Qualification document", instead of "this notification is in accordance with clause 2.20.1 of Request for Qualification document". The petitioner was shocked to receive the communication dated 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008, and by reply dated 02.07.2008, the petitioner highlighting its points of submission, requested to review the omission of the consortium of the petitioner from the eligibility list of candidates for RFP stage. The first respondent has not replied to the communication dated 02.07.2008 till the filing of the writ petition. 2.4. The Chairman representing Shipping Corporation of India, one of the consortium members, met the Chairman cum Managing Director of the first respondent and wanted to know how the petitioner was not shortlisted for the next stage. It has been informed to the petitioner that the Power of Attorney issued by Container Corporation of India was not notarized and therefore, the petitioner was not shortlisted. In respect of the shortlisting of the bidders, except two of them, others are in the 9th, 11th, 14th and 15th ranks as per the eligibility points. The first respondent could have sought for clarifications to facilitate evaluation in terms of clause 2.20.1 before coming to any conclusion in respect of pre-qualification. Hence, being aggrieved over the arbitrary, discriminatory, unlawful, unsatisfactory and high handed action by the officers of the first respondent in disqualifying the petitioner in the first stage of pre-qualification, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3.1. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.16957 of 2008 is that the petitioner company is duly incorporated under the laws of Singapore. It is a 100% subsidiary of PSA India Private Limited, which is in turn a 100% subsidiary of PSA International Private Limited (herein after referred as PSA International) and is part of PSA Group. The PSA Group has operations in 28 ports in 16 countries across Asia, Europe and America and a global capacity of 111 million TEUs and over 66 kilometres of quarry length. For three consecutive years since 2005, PSA International has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ voted "Best Global Container Terminal Operator" at the Asian Freight and Supply Chain Awards. 3.2. The petitioner together with ABG Infralogistics Limited and Schelde Container Terminal Noord N.V., formed a consortium and submitted an application pursuant to the Request for Qualification Document dated March, 2008 in relation to the proposed development of a container terminal on Build Operate Transfer basis (herein after refereed as BOT basis) at Ennore Port. The petitioner is the Lead Member of the Consortium. The petitioner submitted application of its experience through a process of self assessment i.e., by awarding itself Experience Scores. Clause 3.5 of the RFQ document provides that the credentials of eligible applicants were to be measured in terms of their total Experience Scores. While so, the petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned notice dated 30.06.2008 from the Ennore Port, the second respondent in this writ petition that the application submitted by the petitioner has not been shortlisted for the Bid Stage. Though the petitioner sought reasoning as to why it has not been shortlisted, there is no response. Hence, the petitioner has to approach this Court challenging the arbitrary rejection of the application of the consortium by the Ennore Port, the second respondent herein. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.17744 of 2008 is that the petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner submitted all the required information and documents as per the RFQ document. The petitioner ranks 6 in terms of experience / technical score. Though the petitioner was expecting that it would be shortlisted, it was surprised to receive the proceedings of the Ennore Port, the second respondent herein stating that the petitioner had not been shortlisted for the next stage of Bid Process i.e., RFQ state. The first respondent acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner and arbitrarily not included the name of the petitioner as one among the shortlisted applicants who are eligible to participate in the Bid Process. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition. 5.1. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.20409 of 2008 is that the petitioner company is incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and it is having current operations in five ports viz., Kandla, Kolkata, New Mangalore, Paradip and Sikka and is one of the largest crane rental companies in the country. There are two subsidiary companies of the petitioner viz., ABG Kandla Contrainer Terminal Limited and ABG Kolkata Container Terminal Private Limited. 5.2. The petitioner together with PSA Ennore Limited, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ formed a consortium and submitted an application. The PSA Ennore Limited, who was the Lead Member of the consortium, has operations in 28 ports in 16 countries across Asia, etc. Thus, all the members of the consortium were without doubt candidates with exceptional qualifications and credentials and the petitioner was extremely confident about its chances that it will be selected for the RFP state. While so, by proceedings dated 30.06.2008, the Ennore Port Limited, the second respondent herein sent a letter to the petitioner consortium, PSA Ennore informing that the application submitted by it has not been shortlisted for the Bid Stage. The petitioner sought certain information, but till date, the information has not been furnished. Hence, the petitioner has to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.23357 of 2008 is that the petitioner company is incorporated under the laws of Republic of Singapore. A consortium consisting of the petitioner, one Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Limited and one Adani Enterprises Limited had submitted a bid in response to a tender floated by the first respondent. The petitioner consortium has not been shortlisted for the next RFP state. No reason whatsoever has been given for the exclusion of the petitioner. The petitioner made a full and complete disclosure of all facts relating to the petitioner consortium and a rival consortium (PSA Consortium) and recording that the petitioner consortium and the PSA Consortium were not in conflict of interest. Immediately upon receipt of communication dated 30.06.2008 not shortlisting the petitioner, the petitioner attempted to ascertain from the first respondent on what basis the petitioner's proposal had not been shortlisted for the next stage of Bid. But the first respondent refused to provide any information whatsoever. The petitioner's letter and the notice of the Advocate did not evoke any response. Hence, challenging the proceedings dated 30.06.2008, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner in W.P.No.23795 of 2008 challenges certain clauses in the Guidelines for Pre-Qualification of Bidders for Public Private Partnership (PPP) Projects, to strike down the same as arbitrary and unconstitutional and also challenging the letter of the Ennore Port Limited, the second respondent dated 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 not shortlisting the petitioner. 8. The petitioner in W.P.No.23357 of 2008 filed another writ petition in W.P.No.23358 of 2008 for declaration that clause 2.2.1 (c) of RFP document is bad in law. Likewise, the petitioner in W.P.No.16957 of 2008 has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.16958 of 2008 to quash the clauses 1.2.1, 2.2.1(c), 3.2.1 and 3.2.6 of Model Request for Qualification for PPP Projects dated 05.12.2007 and for a direction to the second respondent to amend https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Request for Qualification document dated March, 2008. 9. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in each of the writ petitions. W.P.No.17744 of 2008 9.1. As far as the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.17744 of 2008 is concerned, it is the case of the respondents that: (i) the composition of the consortium formed by the petitioner along with McQuarie Capital, Singapore had a floating equity ratio between them. As per the RFQ document, Clause No.2.2.3, the equity participation of the members of the consortium had to be a definite defined one and not in a manner as exhibited in the consortium of the petitioner. Having equity percentage of not less than 51% could mean having equity of 99% also by the petitioner and having equity of not more than 49% could mean having equity of 1% also by McQuarie Capital Singapore Pte. Ltd. As a result of this, only the petitioner was eligible for evaluation on account of holding at least 26% of the equity of the consortium; (ii) the experience/technical score which was self assessed by the petitioner could not be considered because of the above referred to fact; (iii) at no point of time, at the time of opening of applications on 20.5.2008, it was announced by the representative of the respondent that the points which were read out were secured by the applicants. It was made clear that what was being read out for the sake of transparency of the bid process was the self assessed technical score as submitted by the applicants. The announcement of the self assessed scores were subject to evaluation. The ranking of the petitioner, as stated by him, is purely his own conclusion without the respondent concurring with it. (iv) the contention of the petitioner that he was shortlisted for invalid reasons is denied. Since typographical error crept in the communication by this respondent, it was rectified vide another communication dated 1.7.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) the technical score derived from the experience of such a consortium member, who is a Fund Manager and is not an owner of the fund cannot be taken into account while computing the technical score of the consortium. Hence, the self assessed technical score of the petitioner consortium could not be considered and the petitioner could not be shortlisted for the next stage of bidding process; (vi) the non-inclusion of the petitioner consortium has been on account of flawed composition of consortium. The other consortium member, i.e., McQuarie Capital Singapore Pte. Ltd., being a fund manager, its technical score could not be considered by the respondent; (vii) As per Clause 2.17.4 and 2.21.1 of the RFQ document, the respondent was not supposed to either divulge the reason for disqualification to the applicants, or entertain any query or clarification from applicants who fail to qualify; (viii) the respondents have acted with utmost fairness and transparency in accordance with the policy guidelines of the Government of India, as contained in RFQ document and hence, the right of the petitioner, much less Article 14 of the Constitution of India, had not been violated. No public interest has suffered on account of the ground as stated by the petitioner; and (ix) no right of the petitioner has been violated since the respondents have acted in a fair and non discriminatory manner. 9.2. A reply affidavit had been filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the following facts have been set out: (i) in each consortium, there is one lead company and the bid/application should be in the name of the lead company. The petitioner is the lead company in the consortium. The petitioner submitted its application for pre-qualification with reference to the RFQ document dated 7.3.2008 by its application dated 19.5.2008. The petitioner submitted all the required information and documents as per the RFQ document. The petitioner was ranked in the list read out by the respondent as per the self assessment. The petitioner received a communication from the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent dated 30.6.2008 stating that the petitioner has not been shortlisted for the next stage of bidding process. However, no reason was given in the impugned order for not shortlisting the petitioner for the next stage. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have set out the reasons for not shortlisting the petitioner; (ii) it is alleged in the counter that though the petitioner was eligible for evaluation on account of holding at least 26% of the equity of the consortium, the other partner of the consortium is ineligible for evaluation on account of not holding at least 26% of the equity of the consortium. Secondly, it has been alleged that the consortium partner McQuaire Capital is only a Fund Manager and not the owner of the fund and hence, the technical score derived for the experience of McQuaire Capital cannot be taken into account while computing the technical score of the consortium. The first reason alleged for rejection of the application of the petitioner shows that the respondents have not looked into all the documents submitted by the petitioner along with its application and applied its mind before rejecting the application of the petitioner. Along with the bid document, the petitioner submitted the Joint Binding Agreement dated 29.4.2008. In the said agreement, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner's share holding is 51% and that of the other consortium member is 49%. Thus, the equity participation of the members of the consortium is definite and defined. However, the respondents, without referring to the shareholding pattern of the two consortium members have wrongly held that the equity participation of the members of the consortium is not definite and defined. This perverse finding led to arbitrary denial of the right of the petitioner to participate in the financial bid. Thus, the impugned order has been passed without a proper scrutiny of documents submitted by the petitioner; (iii) the financial capacity clause 2.2.2 (B) states that the applicant shall have a minimum net worth of Rs.195