IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ( C.C ) CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.S^S^ OF 2003 IN THE MATTER OF: Railtech Schlatter Systems Having its registered office at: 119, Avenue Louis Roche - BP 152 92231 Gennevilliers Cedex, France Through its Power of Attorney and Collaborator, Mr. M. Cyril Pidoux Petitioner VERSUS M. ^2. ^. ^^ Bhilai Steel Plant, Admn. Block, Bhilai - 490001 District Durgh, Chhattisgarh Through its Managing Director, Mr. B.K. Singh ^.^-^" ^•^^ A^ Deputy General Manager (Project-EPS), Admn. Block, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durgh, Chhattisgarh ,- _ Steel Authority of india, / Having its head office at: ! spat Bhawan, Lodi Road, NewDelhi-110003 Through its Chairman ./ 10 l7''^; :.,.,.^^. z.. ^ ^4'. M/s. Mechelonic Engineering Pvt Ltd., Having its head office at: C-230, SOLARIS-1, Sakjvihar Road, Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Through jts Chairman/ Managing Director AND IN THE MATTER OF: Contesting Respondents A Writ Petition under Article 226 of theconstitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the natureof certiorari for calling of the relevant record pertaining to the Tender being Tender NO. IFB NO.CE(TK)/5(338)A/2003/437 dated 29.03.2003 for Package Aand IFB No.CE(TK)/5(338)B/2003/438 dated 31.03.2003 for Package B AND for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the Letter ,of intent issued in August, 2005 by the Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.a above-named and any other further contract / documents executed in its favour as the same have been done illegally contrary to the termsof the Tender. AND for issue of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos.1-3 to issue Letter of intent in favour of the Petitioner-Company and thereafter to execute all necessary documents including the contract etc. in respect of Tender being Tender NO. IFB NO.CE(TK)/5(338)A/2003/437 dated 29.03.2003 for Package A and IFB NO.CE(TK)/5(338)B/2003/438 dated 31.03.2003 for package B •t : ; - -1 ",.:-J ^ ' ; ;'•, AND IN THE MATTER OF: / ^ . Article 14 of the Constitution of india . . ^: '^:^., '!T1 WRIT PETITION N0.3SS6/Q3 Railtech Schlatter Systems V5. BhUal Steel Plant & Ors. ORDBR PoQtfor; V^/4/2004. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.3656/2003 Railtech Schlatter Systeias V8 Bhilai 9tccl Plant and Othcrs Shri Rajeev Datta, Sr. Advocate with Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioncr. Shri Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Diwaker, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manindra Shrivasta, Adocate for respondent No.4. QRDBR Per Fa&hruddin. J. The petitioner has filed this petitton for issuance of a writ of certiorari or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari caUiag for the records pcrtaimng to Oie leiider beiiig leiAder No.CEfTK)/5(338)A/2003/437 dated 29.03.2003 for package A and IFB No. CECTK)/5(338)B/ 2003/438 dated 31.03.2003 for package B issiied by respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner has further prayed for is8U€ince of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting asidc thc lcttcr of intent issucd in August, 2003 by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No.4 and any other further contract / documents executed in its favour AS according to the petitioner they h^ve been done illegally, contrary to the terms of the tender. The petitioner ^£^6S has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of inandainu»or an appropriatc writ, ordcr or du'cction ni thc naturc of maiidaiuus dii'ectuig respoiideiits No. 1 to 3 lo issue lelter of intent in favour of the petitioner company and thereafter to execute aU necessary dociunents including the contract etc. in respect of the tender. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the company duly registered under the laws of the Republic of France and is inter aUa engaged in the businese of laxQiiufactiire ond seUing of various typcs of wcldiag cqiiipxxients including rall weldiiig plaiits. II is coiileiided tliat llicy ai'e Uie world's foremost manufacturers and integrators of welding plants with a very wide experience in maniifactiiring and siipplying Rail Flash Butt Welding Machines along with other finishing equipnients to vcirious countries aU over the world in the past. It is statcd that thcy arc prescntiy cngagcd in cxccuting orders of saaie machlnes to M/s. Jlndal Steel & Power In India. It is further contended that the petitioner company is constrained to fUe this petition as the respondents No. 1 and 2 have illegally and acting in an arbitrary faehion decided to issuc lcttcr of intcnt to rcspondcnt No.4 company and to award a contract. for packagcs A and B contrary to the tender conditions contatned in documents IFB No.CECTK)/5(338)A/2003/437 dated 29.03.2003 for package A and IFB No. CE(TK)/5(338)B/ 2003/438 dated 31.03.2003 for package B. It is contended that above act is contrary to law and is violativc of Articlc 14 of thc Constitution of India. II is also arbitrai'y exercise of powers 011 tlie pait of respondents No. 1 to 3, who are Govemment of India functionaries / enterprises falling within the purview of State within the ineanuig ofArticle 12 of Constitution. 3. The petitioner has tbrmulated the questions of law tbr considera.tion, which are as under: "a. Whether once the Govemment has decided to ccward contract on the basis of bid of tender it must czbide by the terms of the Tender and whether not follou)ing strictty the Tender conditions tantamau.nt to infringement ofArtide 14 ofthe Constitution? b, Whether in the fcfcts of the present case the ofct of the respondents No. 1 to 3 of issuing letter of intent and awarding ofthe contract to respondent No.4 in respect oftender being tender No.CE(TK)/5(338}A/2003/437 dated 29.03.2003 for package A (Rcdl Weldtn.g Mochine) and JFB No. CE{TK)/5(338)B/ 2003/438 dated 31.03.2003 for package B (Finishing Machmes and conveyors) is amenable to the scope ofjudicial review on the grounds ofmalafides, unreasonableness and arbitrahness?" 4. Shri Rajeev Datta, leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2002, the respondents No. 1 and 2 issued an invltatlon for instaUation of a world- dass rail welding plant at Rail and Stnictiiral Mill to meet the dexnand of fhe Indian Rallways for 240-260 ineter long ralls for safer oxid high-speed travel. It ie contended that the pctitioncr c-oinpany had purchascd thc tendcr dociuncnts. .£ After purchaeing the earne, the petitionere subinitted their offcr on 14/8/2002. Thc pctitioncr was thc only quaBficd bidder but Luiforluiialely afler detailcd tecluucal aiid commerclal negotiations respondents cancelled the tender vide their letter dated 31/3/2003. It is submitted that no reason was assigned for canceUation. It is further subinitted that reBpondents no. 1 ond 2 again iQSued a global tender for the purcha»c of coinplcte rail welding plant and rail structural mill but by splitting the initial complete line into tliree parts: (i) Package 'A' - Iiistallaiioii of rail weldiiig maclmie; (ii) Package <B? - Tnstallation of eqiiipment for rail wcldtng plant, viz. Rollcr tablcs, Transfcr bcd, Brushing station, Grinding station, Hydraulic Press, Cooling stations, Ultrasonic Uaw detector, Saws, Bend test machine, ctc.; (ui) Package 'C' - Installation ot' rail weldmg plant- Reul handing system. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contended fhat though the petitioncr had purchased aU fhc three tendcr docunicnte^ but quoted only In respect of package A and package B. It 1s submitted that two invitations for bid were sent by respondents No.1 to 3 on 29.03.2003 and 31.03.2003 to the petitioners. The respondents No. 1 to 3 had enclosed fhe bid data sheet. Copy of the aamLC hae been filed BQ Annexure P-1 . collcctivcly. It is contendcd that in thc tcndcr docuincnts aad ^rg^SSsi the invitatione for bid sent to the petitioner, the respondents No, 1 to 3 had also includcd bio data shcct for packagc A uiider rTB 8.3 (c) wlilcli meiiLioiis cillcria for eUgibiUly of Oie bldder as follows: (i) The prmcipal bidder should have supplied and cominissioned successfully at least 5 (five) nos, of automatic flash butt rail welding machtne in the last 5 (five) years. (ii) Thc average annual turnovcr for fhe last 3 years of the principal bidder should be Ks.4.00 crores (approxiinately). 6. It is contended that similarly in the bid data sheet for packagc B undcr FTB 8.3 (c), thc critcria for cUgibiUty meiilioiis as uiider: (i) The average annuol tiimover for the last 3 years of the princlpal bidder should be Rs.5.00 crores (approximately). 7. Counsel for fhe petitioner further contended that the requireinent was that the principol bidder or hie associate had supplicd and coinxnissioncd succcssfuUy rajl weldiag plant. It 1s contended that ttils was mandatory and tiad an ovemding effect on other provisions in ftie IFB and ITB. It is ftirther contended that respondents No.1 to 3 had invited the respondent No<4 for the technical and coininercial raeetings olong with the petitioners, though the 2'eapondent No.4 did not fulfill the criteria of principal bidder as given in tender advcrti8cincnt and tcndcr docuincnts< 8. Leaiiied couiisel coiiteiided tliat respoiideiil No<4 did not fulfill the criteria of prlnclpal bidder as regardlng successful manufacturer of atleast 5 rail flash butt welding inachuies in the last five years specified in the tender docuinents. Regording package B^ respondent No,/1 again did not qualify in tcnn»of individual tum ovcr of the principal bldder nor dld they ever taulld and set into operatlon a similar state-of-the-art line for tiigh-speed track as specified by respondents No.l to 3 ui their technical specifications- Counsel referred to fhe letters Annexure P-2 dated 16.06.2003, Anncxi.irc P-3 datcd 10.07.2003 and Anncxurc P-4 dated 15.07.2003 writtcn to the Member (Enginccrmg), Rallway Board, Mlnlstiy of Rallways, Govt. of Indla. On 22.07.2003, the petitioner sent a letter (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.3. It is contended that since the petitioners did not receive any reply, they sent the representation (Anncxiirc P-6) to thc IIon^blc Minister for Stecl, Qovt. of India. 9* CounQcl for thc pctitioncr subniittcd that thc respondente No. 1 to 3 have failed to apply the eligibility criteria as set out in the tender documents to respondent No.4. It is submitted that they have completely over looked the conditions and deviated. In para 9 (s) of the petition, it is ^- x</ contended that respondents No.l to 3 have taken certain gLiarantcc^ froxn rcQpondcnt No,4 and tJicir associatcs i.c. M/s. Giesmar Fraiice aiid M/s. Tecluio Fab, Calcutla. II is further contended that respondents No.l to 3 called for submission of revised price bids from the petitioners and respondent No.4 on 07.07.2003. It is also contended that the price bid by respondent No^ at this tune had both imported contcnte in Euro^ and local supply. It i»contended that in reading out of prlce bids to representatives of the bldder, It was noticed that respondent Mo.4 had put nearly 40 per cent of machine cost under foreign design and engineering in both packages A and B fhereby trying to take advantage of lesser duly lcvy in tcnnQ of rcQpondcnte bid cvaluation, clausc ITB 38.2 (e), which indicates a R&D ccss of only 5 pcr cent as agalnst 25 per cent baslc Custom Duty on machine CIF value. It is further contended that this would give advantage to respondent Np.4. It is also confcended that respondent No,4?s inachines were not of proven deeign ae their deeign coet wae so high. It is contendcd that in both conditions the respondents No.l to 3 ougtit to have rejected the ofTer of respondent No.4 as they wanted only proven machines. It is ftirther contended t.hat the petitioners finally soiight a meeting with the Director (Projects), Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Chainnan, Steel Authority of India Ltd< on 22.09.2003 but thcy wcrc only ablc to mcct thc Chairman, 8 (^F who did not provide the petitioner with aay satisfactory an^wcr, 10. Counsel subinits that a letter of intent has been issued to reepondent No<4 and the respondentQ No-1 to 3 are in proccss for signing thc contract for packagc A and packagc B wlth respondent No.4 and hls assoclates. As such, havlng no alteniative remedy, the petitioners filed the present petition on ttie ground that conditions of tender are not being storictly followed and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contendcd that the decision niaking proccss is liable for judiclal scruliiiy 011 tlie gi'omids of mala Hdes, unreasonableness and arbltrarlness. II* In support of thc ciuestions forniiilated, Shri Rajcev Datte., leamed sr. Counsel contended that ttie falr play 1s required even in administi'ative action and he relying upon the judgnient of the Apex Court ui the case of Ramana Dayarain Shetty ve. Intemationol Airport Authority of India and Ore. reported in 1979(3) SCC 489, contended fhat the adminlstratlve authorlty is equally bound by the norms, standards and procedures laid down by it for others. Disregard of the nonns or standards woiild invalidate its action unless it is based on soine valid principle, which is neifher irrational or unreasonable nor diQcriininatory. :^. Leamed counsel referred to paragraphs 6^ 7, 10, 20, 21 and 34 of thc judgmcnt* 12. Leamed counsel further relied upon thejudginent ofthe Apex Court in the case of Roin ond Shyam. vs. State of Haryana reuortcd in 1985(3) SCC 267 and contendcd that thc Govemment has a right not to accept the hlghest bld and even to preter a tender other than highest bidder, it' there exists good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the inarket price or need to give the conceesion to a wcakcr ^cction of the socicty who could not outbid thc Iiigliest blddcr. Bul after rejecdiig tlie oUfer it 1s obligatory 011 the Govemment to act fairly and at any rate it cannot act arbitrarily. T^amed coiinsel referred to paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 of fhe judgment. 13. Leamed counsel tbr the petitioner also relied upon the judginent of the Apex Court in the case of Kuinari ShrUekha Vidyarthi & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 1991 (1) 8CC 212 and contendcd that State?s action is anicnablc to judicial revlew to determlne violation ofArtlcle 14 Irrespectlve of the scope of review in ttiis sptiere. Leamed counsel referred to paras 19, 22 and 24 ofthejiidgment 14. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further relled upon the judgment of the Apex Court m the case of G.B. Mahaiaii ^vs. Jal^aon Municipal CoiincU & Ors. reported in 1991 (3) -UL.-._,. ^£'r.^axs:.i^weawv 10 SCC 91 and contended that for judicial review relating to contractual tranQaction of Govcmracnt^ public law clcxncnt must be preseiit before judicial review caii be uivoked. He refen'ed to paragrapli 46 of the judgment. 15. Lcamcd counscl for fhc pctitioncr also rclicd upon thc judgment of the Apex Court In tlie case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reDorted in 1994 (6) SCC 651 and contended that only the decision making process aiid not the merits of the decision itself is reviewable as a Court does not sit as an appcllate Court whilc cxcrcising power of rcvicw. WhUe thc Coui't caiuiot iiiterfere willi Qovenuueiit's freedom ofcoiitracl, invitation ofTender and refusal of any tender which pertain to policy matter, biit. whether the dedsion / action is vitiated by arbitrarinesSy unfaimess, illegality, irrationality or WedncQbury^B unreasonableneQS^ Le^ when the decieion is such as no rcasonablc pcrson on propcr appUcation of raind could take or procedural improprlety, can be looked into by Court. Test is wtiettier wrong is of such a nature as to require intervention. If so, Court would set right the decision naaking process but it would not substitute its own opinion for that of cxpcrtQ. Thc principal of judicial rcvicw would apply to cxercise of contractual powers of Governinent bodles ki order to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. He referred to paragraphs 70, 76 aiid 80 of the judgment. ^&—6"""—a- 11 16. Leamed counsel for the petitioner furthier relied upon thc judgnicnt of thc Apcx Coi.irt. in thc casc of Monarch Iiifraslryclure (P) Ltd,_v^s. CommissiQyei\ UUiasi^ Mimiclpal Corporation & Ors. reuorted in 2000 (51 SCC 287 and contended that tlie Court's mterierence is called forwhere Goveminent action is arbitrary or discriniinatory. Notice inviting tender for appointinent of agents for coUection of octroi subject to tcnnQ and conditions stated thcrcui; one of the conditlons of eUgibility deleted after the expiry of the time limit for submission of tenders but before opening thereof. In such circunistances, award of the contract to a tenderer who at the tune of submission of tender did not satisfy fhe state condition rightly sct a^idc by thc High Court aa arbitrary, Hc referred to paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 of thc judgmcnt. 17. Leomed counsel for the petitioner aleo relied upon the judgnicnt of thc Apex Court in thc case of W,B. Statc Electrlcltv Board vs. Patel Englneerlng Co. Ltd. 8& Ors^ reported iii 2001 f21 SCC 451. He made reference to Placitum A, B aiid E of the said judgmient. 18. Learned counsel for ttie petitioner further relled upon the jiidgment of t.he Apex Coiirt in the case of Datte Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo MerchantUes Pvt. Ltd. 5& Ors- reported in 1997 (1) SCC 53. He referred to paragraph 7 of thc judgxncnt. ^*-^—— 12 ^ 19, Shri Vijay Hansaria^ lcamcd Sr, Counscl for respoiideiits No. 1 io 3 011 tlie otlier liaiid coiitciidcd llial 110 procedural impropriety or irrationallty Is there so as to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. It is submitted tliat the Court?s enquiry is limited to the decision xnaking process of the concerned authorities, It is stMed that respondents No, 1 to 3 awarded the contract to the consortiuin of rc^pondcnt No.4, whlch was admittedly the lowest tenderer. It 1s contended that Uie petitioner wants to ctiallenge the award of contract on merits on certain disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in ttie writ petition< The writ pctition ie barrcd by thc principlc of dclay, Thc tcndcrs werc opencd on 07.05.2003. Though the petitioners had ralsed objectlons agatnst the ellglblllty of respondent No.4 by thetr representation dated 16.06.2003, but the same was rejected. It is submitted that both the petitioner and consortiuin of reepondent No.4 eubinitted their revised bids, which were opcn on 07.07.2003 in presence of bofh the parties wlthout any objectlon by the petltloner as to the eUgibiUty of respondent No.4. The letter of intent was issued in favoiir of respondent No.4 on 21.08.2003 and formal contract was signed with the consortiiira of respondent No,4 on 21.09.2003. AU these facta were fully known to the pctitioncr. 13 6^) 20. Counsel also contended that the petition is barred t)y the prindpal of estoppel and acqiiiescence inasmiich as the petitioner has fully participated in the process ofaward ofthe contract in which both the petitioner and consortiuni of rcspondcnt No.4 wcrc considcrcd. The pctitioncr having particlpated In the tender proceedtngs along wlth respondent No.4 is estopped from challengmg the eligibility of the respondent No-4. 21. Counsel for respondents Mo.l to 3 submitted that the paper publication was issued on 5/8.6.2002. The respondents reserved their right to cancel the tender at any tinic without asQigrdng any rcason. Clausc 42,1 of thc Instructions to Biddcrs was referrcd. Counsel contended that after due deUberatlons, the Committee decided to retender the rail weldtng plant package by splitting into suitable sub packages. The work of laying down of the technical specification for each of the eub packages wae entrueted to Center for Enginecring 8& Tcchnology (CET). 22. Shri Hansaria submitted that as per clause 8.3 of the Instructions to Biddcrs, a bid can bc aubmittcd by consortiiun of two or morc partics as mcmbers. So far as qualification is concemed, it was specificaUy provided that in order for a consortium to qualtfy, each of its members or conibuiation of ineinbers raust ineet fhe inininiuin criteria 14 listed for an individual bidder. Clause 1.4 of the general conditionQ of contract defSSjrxea contractor to includc onc or more members of ilie coiisoriium. Accordiiig iu clause 3.9.1, where the contractor 1s a consortiiim, all the parties arc bomid severally and jointly to tlie employer to fulfill the contract. 23. Counsel submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.4 both requested for tender docuiaents, which were made avoilable to thexn. The tenders were eubinitted by only two partics i.e. petitioncr and consortiuxn coinprising of respoiidciil No.4, M/s. L. Oelsmat',Fraiice aiid M/s. Siemeus Ltd., Mumbai, whojoined later, for project A and for project B consortiiini comprising of respondent No.4, M/s. L. Geismar, France, M/s. Techno Fab Manufacturing (P) Ltd^ KoUcata and M/s. Sieraens Ltd^ Munibai, whojoined later. He referred to forwarding lcttcr of rcspondcnt No.4 datcd 02.05.2003 with regard to package A as weU forwardlng letter of respondent No.4 dated 02.05.2003 witti regard to package B. 24. Counsel further submltted that along with the bid documents, the respondent No.4 attached MoU between ftie consortiiim members. Coiinsel contended that respondent No-4 nieets the eligibility criteria. One of the consortiiiin inenibers of reQpondent No.4 nainely M/s. L. Geisraar haa \ supplicd and coiainissioncd succcssfully fivc autoinatic flash 15 G| butt rail welduig inachines in the last three years, whereas thc rcquircmicnt i» to havc donc thi» in thc prcviou^ fivc yeai's. Witli regaixl lo reqturemeiit ofaverage aiuiual luiiiover for the last three years, it Is submitted that the respondent No.4 alone has an average tuniover of about Rs.6.00 crores. 25. Leamed counsel submltted that there are only four parties available globally, who are the manulacturers / suppliers of niodem rail welding tnachine including the petitioner and M/s. Geisinar, Fraace, the consortiuin nieinber of rcspondent No.4. Thc Coininittec considered fhat M/s. Geisiuai", Fraiice, tlie coiisortiuui uieuiber of respoiidciil No.4 meets the eliglbmty criteria of supplylng 5 machlnes in last flve years. More over, oiit of the foiir nianiifactiirers world over, one is presently not in the business and the other has not subinitted the bid and in case the offer of respondent No.4 was not considcrcd then (a) fhc rcspondcnt No. 1 would tiave left with only one party l.e. petltloner whlch mlgtit have lead to earlier situation existed before ttie re-tendering; (b) it would tisive been very difficult to get reduction in the price and finalize the tender with single party; and (c) there would havc bccn no coinpctition and thc objcctivc of gctting conipetitive price by rc-tendering niight have not been achieved and at that stage, the followlng adverse impllcations would have arisen: 16 ^? (i) The whole procees of global bidding, techno- coiuuiercial scruUiiy / discussioiis etc. beiiig leiiglliy and tinie consiiming it woiild fiirther delay the ovcrall commissioning 8chcdi.de of rail wclding plant which in tum would have lead to considerable cost oveirun, (ii) The ofhcr package suppliers of rail welding plant niight also ask compensation for delay m commissioning of their packages. (iii) Since parties were limited in fhe fleld possibility of poor response could not be avoided by repeated re- tendering. 26. Leamed coiinscl furthcr subinitted that the price bid evaluatioii report was submltted lo Uie teiider couuulltee aiid ttie tender of the respondent No.4 was accepted for project A and project B. On 21.08.2003, letters ofintent for project A and project B were issued and on 21,09/2003, formal contract.8 for both projects were duly signed and executed bctwccn rcspondcnt No.3 and consortiuin racinbcrs of respondent No.4. 27. Counsel also subniitted that after signnig of thc above contracts, many meetings have taken place for proper implementation of projects. Performance bank guarantee has already heen siibniittRd by a1] consortiiini members in accordance with the tenns of contract, 28. Shri Haiisaria submitted that respondent No.4 had subraitted bid for package A on its behalf and also on behalf ^—- 17 ^(&" of ite consortiumi raeinber M/s, L, Gei&niar, France. The bid for packagc B wa^ subniittcd by rc^pondcnt No.4 on its bchatf aiid 011 belialf of its coiisortium members M/s. L. Geisuiai', France and M/s. TFM Ltd., Kolkata. 29. Shri Hansaria rcferrcd to para 10 of thc pctition and contended that the petitioners have not come with clean haiids. In para 10 of the petition,