HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'Me ShriSunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe SftvamSharma. JJ. W.P.fCl N0.17200011 (Petitioners) 1. M/s. Mohammed Kasim, a partnership flrm acting in the premises through its partner Sheikh Niyamatullah S/o. Mohammed Kasim, aged about 46 years, R/o. House No.173, Ward No.1, Darri Road, Ramsagarpara Road, Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (CG) 2. Sheikh Niyamatullah S/o. Mohammed Kasim, aged about 46 years, R/o. House No.173, Ward No.1, Darri Road, Ramsagarpara Road, Korba, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (CG) Respondents Vs. 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (A Govemmerrt of Chhattisgarh Undertaking), through its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raiput (CG) 2. The Chief Engineer (Gen.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Korba East, P.0. Korba, Distt. Korba (CG) 3. The Superintendlng Engineer (Purchase & Worte, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Korba East, P.0. Korba, Distt. Korba (CG) 4. Brilliant Electricals, Q.No.HIG-35, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nagar, Jamnipall District Korba (CG) 5. Cenu Engineering Works, C-50, N.T.P.C. Pragati Nagar, District Korba (CG) W.P.(C)No.l720/ll Present: Shri Rishi Rahul Soni and Shri Sameer Singh, counsel forthepetitioners. ORAL ORDER (01.11.^)11.) l-1eard on admission. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following relief(8):- "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold the pre-qualifying requirements/eligibility criteria lakl down by the respondents in respect of Tender Specification N0.20-03/KEB/P&W/ET&I-II/T-211/2010, Tender Specification No. 20-03/KEB/P&W/ET&1-111/T- 213/2010, Tender Specification N0.20-3/KEB/P&W/T- 206/2010 and Tender Specification No.20- 03/KEB/P&W/T-208/2010 to be illegal, Irrational, unfair, arbitrary and inconsistent with the Constitution of India; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash all the proceedings taken in respect of Tender Specification No. Z)-03/KEB/P&W/ET&I-II/T-211/2010, Tender Specification No. 20-03/KEB/P&W/ET&1-111/T- 213/2010, Tender Specification N0.20-3/KEB/P&W/T- 206/2010 and Tender Specification No.20- 03/KEB/P&W/T-208/2010, and further be pleaswl to direct the respondents to issue fresh Notice Inviting Tenders for the work mentioned in the'above sakl four tender specifications with such pre-qualifying requirements as will be l^al, rational, fair and in accordance with the Constitution of India; or W.P.(C)No.l720/ll ^@ The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent state authorities to open price bids of the tenders submitted by the petitioners for the above said four tender specifications, and if the petitioners' bids were found to be lowest one then the respondents may kindly be directed to award the contract to the petitioners; WA Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour ofthe pet'rtioners." 3. Shri Soni, leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner-flrm offer bids for participatlng in the above four tender specifications. According to the tender conditions, the petitioner-firm had deposited envelops containing eamest money, techno- commercial bids and price bids separately in all the four tender specifications. According to the respondents, the petitioner-firm was not found eligible for opening of the price bid (3rt envelop), because the firm coutd not fulfill the qualifying r«|uirements which are contained in the tender dTCuments [Annexure-P/1-page 18 of the paper book]. He further submits that the qualitying requlrements are harsh and irrational and the qualifications relatlngto the execution of similar nature of AOH works of particular package during la^ five yearsin 50 MW and above capacity units in respect of PH II and 120MW and above in respect of PH III are harsh and impracticable. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner-firm partksipated in the tender process after knowing the above qualifylng r^ulrements, which were the part of the tender documents. Knowing fully wetl the W.P.(C)No.l720/ll qualifying requirements, whteh are specific, the petitioner-finn participated in the tender specifications and when it became unsuccessful in the tender process, now It is challengjng the qualifying requirements of the tender documents on the above grounds. The subject works have already been awarded to respondents 4 & 5. We are of the view that after participating in the tender process and being unsuccessful, the petitioner-firm cannot challenge the qualifying requirements, which it did not disputeat any earlier stage before it was declared unsuccessful. 5. tn Meerut Development Authoritv Vs. Assodation of Manaaement Studies and another and other connected matten (2009) 6 SCC 171, the Supreme Court held that the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutlny baause the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Hcwever, a limited judicial review may be avallable in cases where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit Ihe convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other rightexcept the right to equality and fair treatment In the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notlce inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot chaltenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting W.P.(C)No.l720/ll tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provlded for such negotiations. 6. The quallfying requirements lald down by the respondents appear to be settled for the purpose of selectlon of the best bidder, so as to fulflll their requirements. Unless the qualifications fixed are found to be wholly irrational or illegal or tailor-made, the same cannot be interfered in a writ petition like present one. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the wr'rt petition, which is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. _^___ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- RADHE SHYAM SHARMA Judge Binl