WAPCOS Ltd. and Others ... Respondents ***** HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH ***** Present: Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** KARAMJIT SINGH, J. Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID19 Pandemic. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of respondents in rejecting its technical bid vide Email dated 27.4.2021 (Annexure P8) in respect of project for laying of synthetic hockey turf and allied works at SAI, STC, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). Prayer has also been made for quashing of letter dated 28.4.2021 (Annexure P12) and for issuance of writ of Certiorari for quashing of the offending clause 3(j) of SectionII read with FormC 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on 06062021 01:47:04 ::: (2) CWP94152021 (Annexure P1) appended with etender document. The petitioner also made prayer that necessary direction be given to the respondents to consider his price bid. A few facts relevant for the decision of this case as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office in Mumbai. The respondent No.1WAPCOS Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking under Ministry of Jal Shakti having its registered office in Gurugram (Haryana). On 15.3.2021, respondents invited tenders from experienced contractors/bidders having prescribed technical and financial credentials for laying of synthetic hockey turf and allied works at SAI, STC, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). In response to same, the petitioner submitted its bid, online. Thereafter respondents sought clarification from the petitioner vide Email dated 12.4.2021 (Annexure P6) regarding declaration given by it in FormC with regard to no previous history of blacklisting. The petitioner gave reply dated 14.4.2021 (Annexure P7), whereby it clarified its position regarding the same. On 27.4.2021 vide (Annexure P8), the petitioner was informed that its tender has been rejected during technical evaluation by the Committee for the reason "technically not qualified". However, no specific reason was given by the respondents for the same. The respondents opened the financial bid on 28.4.2021 and on the same day they sent letter (Annexure P12) to the petitioner regarding the exact reason for rejection of his bid. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid actions of the respondents being illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on 06062021 01:47:05 ::: (3) CWP94152021 The counsel for the petitioner submitted that bid of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the respondents on the ground that the declaration made by it in FormC of tender documents was false. The learned counsel further contended that as per respondents, the petitioner was earlier blacklisted by Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA') from 6.2.2012 to 6.2.2019. The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid action of DDA to blacklist the petitioner being illegal, was challenged and was finally set aside by the Delhi High Court. The clarification in this regard was given by the petitioner vide Email dated 14.4.2021 (Annexure P7). However the respondents passed impugned order dated 27.4.2021 (Annexure P8) without considering the aforesaid clarification given by the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that order (Annexure P8) was passed by the authorities in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason for rejection of technical bid of the petitioner. The respondents also did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the said order. The same was passed in violation of the settled principles of law. The coun