Judgment : 1. These two writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action, hence they are disposed of together. 2. W.P.No.32328 of 2012 filed by Soma-CGGC JV, a joint venture, sought for the following relief. “………………….. to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent i.e., the High Power Committee, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., in finding respondents 6 to 8 as qualified and responsive and consequential direction to open the financial bids of respondents 6 to 8 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, and vitiated by malice amounting to colourable exercise of power, contrary to the bid conditions and to set aside Memo No.17371/M & M1/CA-11/2012 dated 26.10.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential proceedings of the 5th respondent vide letter No.ENC/ISPP/DCE/OT.3/AEE-1/F.30/VOL.15, dated 31.10.2012.” 3. W.P.No.7520 of 2013 filed by M/s. Madhucon-Sino Hydro JV, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, sought for the following relief – “……. To issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus d) declaring the action of the official respondents in finding the 6th respondent’s bid as qualified, responsive as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and discriminatory, contrary to bid conditions: e) to issue direction to the 1st respondent to cancel the contract agreement entered between the official respondents and 6th respondent since there is fraud played on the official respondents by the 6th respondent; f) to issue direction to the 1st respondent to declare the petitioner consortium’ bid as lowest valued bid and further to direct the official respondents to issue the letter of acceptance in favour of the petitioner consortium being the lowest valued bidder.” PROJECT 4. “Indira Sagar Polavaram Project” (ISPP), is a major multipurpose project, conceived by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, located on the River Godavari, near Ramayyapeta Village of Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. The project has been in contemplation since 1943 and is strategically important from the point of view of food and water security in the country. It is designed to create irrigation potential of 7.2 lakh acres in East Godavari, Visakhapatnam, West Godavari and Krishna Districts and to generate Hydro electric power with an installed capacity of 960 MWs. The project has been in contemplation since 1943 and is strategically important from the point of view of food and water security in the country. It is designed to create irrigation potential of 7.2 lakh acres in East Godavari, Visakhapatnam, West Godavari and Krishna Districts and to generate Hydro electric power with an installed capacity of 960 MWs. Irrigation and generation of electricity apart, the project is to supply water for drinking/industrial requirements of Visakhapatnam city and drinking water facility to several villages and towns enroute. Project works commenced in Andhra Pradesh in 2005 and about 43% works have been completed incurring an expenditure of about Rs.4545 crores. Central assistance of Rs.562.472 crores has been received for the project under the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme. The tender in question is for the Head works of the project. BACKGROUND – 5. Initially, tender bearing number “NIT No.04/2011-12”, dated 8.6.2011 was floated for a value of Rs.4,717 Crores. Seven joint venture entities participated in the bidding. The bid was cancelled with a view to recast the bid documents with better clarity, following the litigation and allegations that the lowest bidder lacked the requisite qualifications. 6. For the second time, tender was floated by the Engineer-in-Chief, the 5th respondent herein, bearing “NIT No.1/2012-13”, dated 16.4.2012. The work was named as “Investigation, Survey, Preparation of Designs and Drawings and L.P. Schedules etc., (Balance) and (1) Construction of Earth Dam Gaps I & III, Earth cum Rock Fill Dam for Gap-II, Spill channel, Approach channel and Pilot channel; (2) Construction of Spillway with crest level + 25.72 m and its ancillary works; and (3) Excavation of foundations of 960 MW Hydro Electric Power House, Approach channel, Intake structure, Tail race pool, Tail race channel etc., of Indira Sagar Polavaram Project on EPC – Turn Key including O&M”. 7. It is an international bid. The contract value is estimated at Rs.4,717 Crores and the work is to be completed in 60 months. 8. The bid was of 2 stages - (i) Eligibility and Technical bid; and (ii) Financial and Price bid. Pre-bid Meeting was held on 23.5.2012. Bid submission closing date was initially fixed as 15.6.2012 and the same was extended to 5.7.2012 on the requests received from the prospective bidders. Technical bids were opened on 5.7.2012. 9. In all, 6 bidders submitted bids through online e-procurement platform. Pre-bid Meeting was held on 23.5.2012. Bid submission closing date was initially fixed as 15.6.2012 and the same was extended to 5.7.2012 on the requests received from the prospective bidders. Technical bids were opened on 5.7.2012. 9. In all, 6 bidders submitted bids through online e-procurement platform. These bidders are – (1) M/s. SOMA Enterprises Ltd., - China Gezhouba Group Company (CGGC) JV (petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012); (2) M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd – Sino Hydro Corpn. Ltd (JV) (petitioner in W.P.No.7520 of 2013); (3) M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV) (Successful Bidder); (4) M/s. Chirkeigesstroy (CGS)-Gammon India Ltd-AMR India Ltd.(JV); (5) M/s. Farab Infra Pvt. Ltd – IVRCL Ltd (JV); and (6) M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd – Patel Engineering Ltd (JV). 10. The bids were evaluated by the Engineer-in-Chief and a report was placed before the State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) on 18.7.2012. The Committee was comprised of Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation) as Chairman, Commissioner of Tenders, Chief Engineer (CDO), Director (W & P) and Engineer-in-Chief, ISPP Unit as members. On the basis of deliberations, 4 out of the 6 bids filed by (1) M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd – Sino Hydro Corpn. Ltd (JV); (2) M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV); (3) M/s. Chirkeigesstroy (CGS)-Gammon India Ltd-AMR India Ltd.(JV); and (4) M/s. Farab Infra Pvt. Ltd – IVRCL Ltd (JV); were found to be non-responsive because they were deficient in fulfilling some eligibility criteria. 2 other bids viz., (1) M/s. SOMA Enterprises Ltd., - China GEZHOUBA GROUP COMPANY (CGGC) JV (W.P.No.32328 of 2012); and (2) M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd – Patel Engineering Ltd (JV) were found technically responsive. Consequently the price bids of these bidders were opened on 20.07.2012. 11. M/s. SOMA Enterprises Ltd., - China Gezhouba Group Company (CGGC) JV quoted Rs.4599.99 Crores and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd – Patel Engineering Ltd (JV); quoted Rs.4653.99 Crores. Eventually, the case of M/s. SOMA Enterprises Ltd., China Gezhouba Group Company (CGGC) JV was recommended to the Government for awarding the contract. 12. Aggrieved by the recommendations made by the SLSC, the bidders whose bids were found non-responsive, viz., M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd – Sino Hydro Corpn. Eventually, the case of M/s. SOMA Enterprises Ltd., China Gezhouba Group Company (CGGC) JV was recommended to the Government for awarding the contract. 12. Aggrieved by the recommendations made by the SLSC, the bidders whose bids were found non-responsive, viz., M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd – Sino Hydro Corpn. Ltd (JV) filed W.P.No.22664 of 2012; M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV) filed W.P.No.23047 of 2012; and M/s. Chirkeigesstroy (CGS)-Gammon India Ltd-AMR India Ltd.(JV) filed W.P.No.22680 of 2012 before this Court with a grievance that their bids should not have been technically disqualified and they were entitled for consideration of their price bids. This Court disposed the writ petitions by a common order dated 31.7.2012 with a direction to the High Power Committee (HPC), [consisting of Secretary, Law; Principal Secretary (P), Principal Secretary (Finance) and Chief Secretary] to consider the bids by issuing the following directions: (i) take a final decision on the technical bids of the Petitioners and communicate the results along with the reasons, there for, to the Petitioners immediately on taking such decision and (ii) Until a decision as mentioned in (i) supra is communicated to the Petitioners the price bids shall not be evaluated and finalized and the contract shall not be awarded to the successful bidder.” 13. In accordance with the aforesaid directions, deficiencies were notified to the nonresponsive bidders by notice dated 12.09.2012 for their responses by 14.9.2012. 14. The aforesaid bidders, except M/s. Farab Infra Pvt. Ltd – IVRCL Ltd (JV), submitted their responses on the notified deficiencies. The SLSC met on 22.09.2012 and reiterated its earlier decision that the said bidders did not meet the qualification criteria. The HPC, thereupon, assessed the bids in the light of the report of the SLSC, differed with it in certain aspects, and found the bids technically responsive. Pursuant to the recommendations of the HPC, the Engineer-in-Chief opened the price bids of 3 bidders viz., M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd – Sino Hydro Corpn. Ltd (JV); M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV); and M/s. Chirkeigesstroy (CGS)-Gammon India Ltd-AMR India Ltd.(JV) on 01.10.2012. The relative position of the price bids quoted by 5 bidders is as follows: Sl.No. Name of Bidder Amount quoted in Rupees Percentage 1. M/s. Transstroy JSC EC UES (JV) - (successful bidder 4054,00,00,000.00 (-) 14.0555% (Less) L1 2. Ltd (JV); M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV); and M/s. Chirkeigesstroy (CGS)-Gammon India Ltd-AMR India Ltd.(JV) on 01.10.2012. The relative position of the price bids quoted by 5 bidders is as follows: Sl.No. Name of Bidder Amount quoted in Rupees Percentage 1. M/s. Transstroy JSC EC UES (JV) - (successful bidder 4054,00,00,000.00 (-) 14.0555% (Less) L1 2. M/s. Madhucon – Sinohydro (JV) – petitioner in W.P.No.7520 of 2013 4091,05,40,000.00 (-) 13.2700% (Less) L2 3. M/s. CGS-Gammon-AMR (JV) 4433,98,00,000.00 (-) 6.0000% (Less) L3 4. M/s. Soma-CGGC (JV) – petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012 4599,99,70,000.00 (-) 2.4805% (Less) L4 5. M/s. SEW – PATEL (JV) 4653,99,99,999.00 (-) 1.3356% (Less) L5 15. M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV) stood as the (lowest L1) with the price bid of Rs.4054 Crores at (-) 14.0555% less than Estimated Cost Value (ECV). The bid of M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV) was, therefore, recommended by the High Power Committee as it would result in the saving of Rs.600 Crores to the Exchequer. It was decided by the Government to award contract vide Memo No.1737/M&M/CA-II/2012, dated 26.10.2012. The acceptance of bid was communicated to M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd – JSC ECUES (JV). 16. Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012; Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State Authorities in both the writ petitions; Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri P. Radhiv Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7520 of 2013 (as also respondent No.7 in W.P.No.32328 of 2012); and Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the successful bidder – M/s. Transstroy - JSC ECUES JV in both the writ petitions. Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.32328 of 2012 remained exparte. Perused the material on record. 17. Contentions on behalf of the petitioner : Broadly, the petitioner would allege deviation of certain bid conditions committed by the respondent-bidders and unfairly relaxation of the conditions in their favour by the State; and the fraud allegedly committed by the successful bidder - M/s. Transstroy -JSC EC UES (JV) in claiming experience. [M/s. Transstroy is an Indian Company and JSC EC UES is a Russian Company]. [M/s. Transstroy is an Indian Company and JSC EC UES is a Russian Company]. The contentions relating to relaxation of bid conditions in favour of M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES (JV) are - (i) The Bid Authorities are bound by the Bid Conditions and evaluate the bids in accordance with the requirements under the Bid Document. The authorities, however, evolved a new methodology and relaxed the Bid Conditions unfairly. (ii) The Power of Attorney (POA) submitted by JSC EC UES was not authenticated by the Indian Embassy in Russia and the POA submitted by it is not as per Form-B21 as required under Clause 32 (3) of the general terms and conditions. Along with POA, the stipulated documents i.e., extract of Chapter documents, Board/Shareholders resolution/ authorization in favour of the person executing the POA on behalf of the bidder/lead member and the Memorandum of Articles of Association of the bidder/lead member should be submitted. Hence the POA of respondent No.8 is not valid. (iii) Documents such as VAT Registration Certificate, PAN, IT returns of JSC EC UES were not submitted as per tender details under Clause 34 (11) & (12). [These documents were submitted by the Indian member Transstroy]. (iv) The company, being a foreign company, is not registered in India with the Registrar of Companies as per the Companies Act of India on the date of submission of bids, which is mandatory under Clause 30-A (4). Hence it is not eligible to participate in the Bid. (v) M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES did not submit Estimate/Credit Facility/Solvency Certificate from Indian Nationalised/Scheduled Banks for value not less than Rs.400-00 Crores, and M/s. Transstroy did not produce the Solvency Certificate for Rs.100-00 Crores at the time of tender submission and hence Clause 30-C (4) (a) and (b) was not complied with. (vi) Declaration regarding equipment as per Format B-24-C was not submitted by M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES. (vii) JSC EC UES did not fulfill the Financial Requirement of Rs.1,564-00 Crores as per Clause 30-C (2)(a). The turnover shown by it was only Rs.1,306-00 Crores. (viii) M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES submitted the Balance Sheets for the years 20062010 only, whereas the requirement under Clause 30-C (2) (p) is for 10 years. (ix) Signature/counter-signature of E.E. & S.E. or equivalent officer was not obtained on some certificates as per ITB conditions C-13.3.4. The turnover shown by it was only Rs.1,306-00 Crores. (viii) M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES submitted the Balance Sheets for the years 20062010 only, whereas the requirement under Clause 30-C (2) (p) is for 10 years. (ix) Signature/counter-signature of E.E. & S.E. or equivalent officer was not obtained on some certificates as per ITB conditions C-13.3.4. (x) JSC EC UES has no Technical and Financial experience, and the certificates produced by it in that regard are forged and fabricated. The Experience Certificate dated 11.08.2011 relied upon by it is a forged document and the signatory Mr. A.V. Novikov disowned his signature in his affidavit filed in the Court. (xi) Details required as per Format B-2 and B-6 were not submitted. Thus, according to the petitioner, the bid of M/s. Transstroy -JSC EC UES was not eligible for consideration and the contract awarded to it should be set aside. 18. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE (i) Judicial review in matters of contract under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and the Courts do not interfere unless it is arbitrary or there is a flaw in the decision making process. In the instant case, bids were evaluated on the basis of the principles that are germane to the nature of work, keeping in view the bid conditions, by adopting a sound methodology and the award of contract does not suffer from any arbitrariness. (ii) The Bid Authority is competent to relax the eligibility criteria under Clause 34 (28) of Special Conditions of the Bid and the power was exercised in public interest uniformly in favour of all the bidders in respect of non-essential conditions, which are procedural requirements, without sacrificing the essential bid conditions. Essential conditions relating to Technical and Financial Requirements as per Clause 30-B and 30-C were not given relaxation. (iii) Production of Registration of Firm/Company/ individual with the Registrar of Companies under the Indian Companies Act, authentication of certificates produced by foreign firms by the Indian Embassy and statutory Auditors were treated as nonessential as they have no bearing in assessing the capacity of bidders to carry out the work and even the said conditions were relaxed only temporarily. (iii) Production of Registration of Firm/Company/ individual with the Registrar of Companies under the Indian Companies Act, authentication of certificates produced by foreign firms by the Indian Embassy and statutory Auditors were treated as nonessential as they have no bearing in assessing the capacity of bidders to carry out the work and even the said conditions were relaxed only temporarily. (iv) Even the petitioners in both the writ petitions were given relaxation in procedural matters and the Technical Bid of the petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012 was accepted though it did not submit Solvency Certificate from an Indian Bank as required under Clause 30-C (4) and (9) and produced it only from a Foreign Bank. (v) The Government made sincere efforts by deputing a team of responsible officers to Russia to enquire into the alleged false claim of experience and fabrication of Experience Certificates produced by M/s. Transstroy -JSC EC UES and awarded the contract to it only after being satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. (vi) The HPC evaluated the Technical Bids in an objective manner keeping in view the public interest and to widen the competition and recommended the bid of M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES as its quotation would save Rs.600-00 Crores to the Exchequer. 19. Contentions on behalf of Respondent No.8-M/s. Transstroy-JSC “EC UES” – JV: In addition to the above, the following contentions are urged: (i) The assessment of a bid and the eligibility of a bidder are within the domain of the Bid Authority and its opinion for selection of a bidder is not a matter for interference by Courts. (ii) M/s. Transstroy and JSC EC UES are fully qualified, both technically and financially. JSC EC UES is a branch of a Joint Stock Company-RAO UES of Russia, which is a State controlled organization meant for development and construction of hydro thermal power projects and for generation, supply and distribution of power in Russia. It has designed 70 thermal power plants in more than 20 countries all over the world. In India it has provided design, survey and consultancy services for Tehri Hydero Power Development Corporation Ltd., from 1997 to 2007. M/s. JSC EC UES has designed, engineered and commissioned 80% of power plants under RAO UES of Russia. It has designed 70 thermal power plants in more than 20 countries all over the world. In India it has provided design, survey and consultancy services for Tehri Hydero Power Development Corporation Ltd., from 1997 to 2007. M/s. JSC EC UES has designed, engineered and commissioned 80% of power plants under RAO UES of Russia. (iii) POA along with the Board Resolutions was produced as required under Clause 32.3 and the authentication was also obtained by the Indian Embassy with some delay and the same, being a procedural requirement, is not fatal to the Bid. (iv) It has complied with the production of VAT, PAN, IT returns. At any rate, the said requirements are only procedural, which have no impact on the performance of the contract. (v) Clause 30-A (4) does not apply to a Foreign Company if it is participating in the bid as a JV partner with an Indian Company. In any event, M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES has registration with the Registrar of Companies, registered on 04.05.2012 in the name of JV, styled as “M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES Private Limited” with JSC EC UES holding 99.90% share. The other partner “M/s. Transstroy India Limited” also has registration with the Registrar of Companies and produced it along with the Bid. Thus, the bidder has satisfied the requirement under Clause 30-A (4). (vi) As required under Clause 30-C (4)(a), Rs.400-00 Crores Solvency Certificate was produced by the Bank of Baroda on behalf of JV and Rs.100-00 Crores Solvency Certificate was also produced on 13.09.2012 on behalf of M/s. Transstroy, in addition to the production of Rs.1,000-00 Crores Credit Facility Certificate from OJSC Promsvyaz Bank in the Bid itself on behalf of JSC EC UES. (vii) Declaration regarding the equipment in compliance with ITB-F-56.0 was also submitted on 13.09.2012 and the Experience Certificates were duly certified by the Indian Embassy at Moscow. (viii) JSC EC UES satisfied the minimum financial turnover of Rs.1,564-00 Crores as required under Clause 30-C (2). (ix) Documents, such as Balance Sheets, signature/ counter signature of the concerned officers as required were also produced. (x) The allegation made against it that the Experience Certificate produced by it is a fabricated document is incorrect. (viii) JSC EC UES satisfied the minimum financial turnover of Rs.1,564-00 Crores as required under Clause 30-C (2). (ix) Documents, such as Balance Sheets, signature/ counter signature of the concerned officers as required were also produced. (x) The allegation made against it that the Experience Certificate produced by it is a fabricated document is incorrect. JSC EC UES has designed and constructed a concrete gravity dam and Bureiskaya Reservoir, fabrication, transportation, erection and commissioning of Hydro-Mechanical works for 6 Radiaxial Hydroelectric Units under the design of Bureiskaya HPP Hydro and completed the said works under Agreement Work Orders dated 16.12.2003, 10.02.2004 and 03.12.2004. The Experience Certificate issued by Bureyagesstroy on 11.08.2011 represented by Mr. A.V. Novikov is genuine and authentic. (xi) The petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012 is an Indian partner of Bureyagesstroy and is executing certain projects in India and it is trying to create some confusion with regard to the genuineness of its claim with the help of some officials of the said Company to disown the said certificate. (xii) The contract awarded to the JV is not liable to be interfered with. CONSIDERATION : 20. It is a well settled proposition that award of contract by the State or a Public Body is a commercial transaction and commercial considerations are relevant for awarding contracts. The State, while dealing with a contract, can fix its own terms and conditions of tender and enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers received by it. The State is also free to grant any relaxation, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. 21. It was held by the Apex Court in G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka ( (1990) 2 SCC 488 ) that the Court would not interfere in the case of every deviation in the tender process and only if such deviation results in arbitrariness or discrimination or where non-conformity with or relaxation from the prescribed standards results in substantial prejudice or injustice to any other party involved or to public interest in general that the Court would step in. 22. In Poddar Steel Corpn. 22. In Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engineering Works ( AIR 1991 SC 1579 ), noticing the nature of requirements in a tender notice and those which lay down essential conditions of eligibility and those which are subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the conditions, it was held that in the case of essential conditions, the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. But, in the case of the later, it would be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon strict literal compliance in appropriate cases. 23. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India ((1994) 6 SCC 654) it was held that the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality and its concern should be whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law or breach of principles of natural justice or abused its powers. 24. Upon noticing a large number of decisions in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India {AIR 1981 SC 844}; Assistant Collector, Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., { (1985) 1 SCC 260 }; Tata Cellular v. Union of India { AIR 1996 SC 11 }; Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra { AIR 1997 SC 1236 }; and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., it has been held in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. ( (2000) 2 SCC 617 ) that though the decision in awarding contract is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if the decision is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State and its agencies have public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. 25. In West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. 25. In West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. ( (2001) 2 SCC 451 ), it was held that adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-by and relaxation or waiver of a Rule or condition, unless so provided under the ITB by the State or its agencies in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room or manipulation to suit the whims of the said agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts. 26. 26. The law on the point was summarised in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. ( (2006) 11 SCC 548 ) to the following effect: “We are also not shutting our eyes towards the new principles of judicial review which are being developed; but the law as it stands now having regard to the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions may be summarized as under: (i) if there are essential conditions, the same must be adhered to; (ii) if there is no power of general relaxation, ordinarily the same shall not be exercised and the principle of strict compliance would be applied where it is possible for all the parties to comply with all such conditions fully; (iii) if, however, a deviation is made in relation to all the parties in regard to any of such condition, ordinarily again a power of relaxation may be held to be existing; (iv) the parties who have taken the benefit of such relaxation should not ordinarily be allowed to take a different stand in relation to compliance with another part of the tender contract, particularly when he was also not in a position to comply with all the conditions of tender fully, unless the court otherwise finds relaxation of a condition which being essential in nature could not be relaxed and thus the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction; (v) when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with; (vi) the contractors cannot form a cartel. If despite the same, their bids are considered and they are given an offer to match with the rates quoted by the lowest tenderer, public interest would be given priority; (vii) where a decision has been taken purely on public interest, the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint. 27. If despite the same, their bids are considered and they are given an offer to match with the rates quoted by the lowest tenderer, public interest would be given priority; (vii) where a decision has been taken purely on public interest, the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint. 27. One of the salient principles that emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that because of the inherent commercial nature of contracts, the State has the power to fix and modulate its own conditions and relax the conditions for bona fide reasons, such power may be expressly indicated in the tender conditions, or by implication, if such power is exercised uniformally without discrimination in relation to all parties. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be exercised with caution and in public interest. 28. In a project of this magnitude, evaluation of bids cannot be made strictly adhering to the bid conditions with mathematical precision. It may not be possible for the Bid Authority to take a rigid stand on the strict compliance of the bid requirements. Some amount of flexibility may become unavoidable in the selection of bidders owing to the nature and complexity of the project, keeping in view the interest of the project, of course, without sacrificing the essential bid conditions. 29. The case on hand is a gigantomachia, which has necessitated the invitation of bids from the domestic as well as international communities. Even the international invitation has yielded a very few participants. A colossal financial involvement of more than Rs.4,000 Crores and technical expertise required for the project was forbidable for the domestic bidders and none could enter the fray on its own. All the six bidders, including the petitioners, could venture for bidding only with the collaboration of foreign companies, both for financial and technical resources. 30. Initially, the evaluation of technical bids was made on 5.07.2012 by the SLSC. It found two bidders, viz., the petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012 and M/s.SEW – Patel (JV) technically qualified and opened their financial bids on 20.07.2012. 30. Initially, the evaluation of technical bids was made on 5.07.2012 by the SLSC. It found two bidders, viz., the petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012 and M/s.SEW – Patel (JV) technically qualified and opened their financial bids on 20.07.2012. On a challenge made by other bidders as to their bids being found technically not responsive, this Court by order dated 31.07.2012 in W.P.Nos.22664, 22680 and 23047 of 2012 gave directions, referred to supra, observing that the technical bids of all the bidders, including the petitioners should be considered objectively by the HPC and to make its recommendations on examining whether the opinions of the Engineer-in-Chief and SLSC were in accordance with the bid conditions. As per the directions, the HPC heard the three bidders, viz., M/s. FARAB –IVRCL (JV), (ii) M/s. CGS – GAMON – AMR (JV), and (iii) M/s. Transstroy – UES (JV) on 12.09.2012 and the deficiencies pointed out by the SLSC were communicated to them to furnish their responses on 14.09.2012. The bidders, except M/s. FARAB – IVRCL (JV), submitted their responses. The SLSC considered the responses on 22.09.2012 and reiterated its opinion that the four bidders remained non-responsive. Thereupon, the matter was placed before the HPC for its consideration as per the directions of this Court. 31. Before considering the question as to the reasonableness of the methodology adopted for evaluating the bids, it is to be seen whether it is permissible to relax the bid conditions. The views expressed by the Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation and B.S.N. Joshi cases are relevant. At the cost of repetition, the principle therein is that the State has power to relax the conditions, such power may be expressly indicated in tender conditions or by implication and that if such power is required to be exercised, it shall be exercised uniformly in the case of all parties without discrimination. 32. The case on hand does not pose a problem to find out whether such a power is available to the State. The power is expressly conferred in Clause 34 (28) of the special conditions. The Clause reads as follows – “The employer reserves the right to relax the conditions for required eligibility of the bidder in public interest. The bidder(s) shall not have any right to question the decision taken by the employer in this regard.” 33. The power is expressly conferred in Clause 34 (28) of the special conditions. The Clause reads as follows – “The employer reserves the right to relax the conditions for required eligibility of the bidder in public interest. The bidder(s) shall not have any right to question the decision taken by the employer in this regard.” 33. The said Clause categorically authorizes the employer to change the eligibility criteria in public interest, and if relaxation is given, the bidders are not entitled to question. All that is important is that such power shall be exercised only in case there is public interest. In the case on hand, none of the bidders fulfilled all the bid conditions. There was some deficiency or other in all the bids. In all most all the six bids, certificates produced by the bidders did not contain counter signatures as required in bid conditions. Even the petitioner did not comply with Clause 30-C (4)(a). As per the said Clause, the bidder, who has liquid assets/credit facilities/solvency certificates from the Indian nationalized/ scheduled banks of value not less than Rs.400 crores and each individual JV member shall have liquid assets/credit facilities/solvency certificate from Indian nationalized/ scheduled banks of value not less than Rs.100 crores. M/s. CGGC, China partner of JV submitted credit facility from China Construction Bank which is not in RBI Scheduled Banks list. Had the bid conditions been strictly implemented without relaxation, all the bids, including the one submitted by the petitioner would have been rejected. Therefore, flexibility was required in the evaluation of bids, which was rightly exercised both by the SLSC and the HPC. In order to have competitive bidding, even the SLSC did not think it fit to disqualify the bids which committed small deviations or procedural lapses observing that they had no bearing in assessing the capacity of the bidder in carrying out the work and it was done to have a competitive bidding by not disqualifying the bidders on trivial lapses though qualified otherwise. 34. Both the Committees viz., S.L.S.C. and H.P.C. thought it desirable to relax the conditions. By and large, there is unanimity between the S.L.S.C. and H.P.C. in the methodology that should be adopted in the evaluation. Both the Committees took the view that certain conditions are non-essential, such as – 1. Production of PAN number and latest IT return. 2. 34. Both the Committees viz., S.L.S.C. and H.P.C. thought it desirable to relax the conditions. By and large, there is unanimity between the S.L.S.C. and H.P.C. in the methodology that should be adopted in the evaluation. Both the Committees took the view that certain conditions are non-essential, such as – 1. Production of PAN number and latest IT return. 2. MOU for design backup, if the bidder does not have the capacity. 3. The JV members should be profit making for at least three years of the last five years. 4. Liquid asset/ Credit facility/ Solvency certification for the JV to the extent of at least 400 crore from Indian Nationalised / Scheduled Banks. Similar certification for individual JV partners from Indian Scheduled banks to the extent of at least Rs.100 Crores. 5. Production of B Formats 1 to 19 with relevant information. 6. Production of Data sheets 1 to 12 with relevant information. 7. Declaration regarding equipment on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-. 35. The H.P.C. differed with the S.L.S.C. and considered the following conditions also as non-mandatory. 1. Registration with the Irrigation Department – Clause 30-A (1), 2. Registration with the Registrar of Companies – Clause 30-A (4), 3. Authentication by Indian Embassy in respect of certificates produced by foreign firms – Clause 34 (25), 4. Authentication by statutory auditors in respect of works undertaken on behalf of private companies – Clause 30-C (2). 36. It is to be seen whether the decision of the Committees to classify the above requirements as non-mandatory and the remaining conditions as mandatory is reasonable and has nexus with the object of the Bid. 37. The tender document itself has classified the requirements – Clause 30 (A) relates to General Requirements; (B) relates to Technical Requirements; and (C) relates to Financial Requirements. 37. The tender document itself has classified the requirements – Clause 30 (A) relates to General Requirements; (B) relates to Technical Requirements; and (C) relates to Financial Requirements. The scope of work is Balance Surveying, Investigation, Subsoil Exploration, Designs, Engineering, Estimates and construction of Earth Dams, Earth-cum-Rock Fill Dam, Spill channel, Approach channel to spillway, Pilot channel in river bed portion in continuation of spill channel, Protection to bed etc., construction of necessary inlets into Spill channel, Formation of BT Roads, road approaches etc., Providing Diversion arrangements for river for a return flood protection to the left and right banks, Non-overflow Dams, Radial Gates, River Sluices and gates, Excavation of foundations for Hydro Power House, including approach channel etc., and finally operation and maintenance for a period of 5 years. 38. The execution of the aforesaid work does require technical expertise and financial capacity. It is virtually impossible to think of a project if the bidder does not have either of the capacities. Therefore, these two requirements are essential/mandatory conditions of the Bid. The conditions enumerated in Clause 30-A, which provide that the bidder should produce testimonials in support of his claim, are not essential requirements, as the testimonials by themselves are insufficient to execute the work without the technical expertise and financial capacity. Therefore, the parameters set out by the Committees to categorise the Bid Conditions as mandatory and non-mandatory must be held to be reasonable and justified. 39. It is to be noted that ordinarily, while it is essential that satisfaction of all the conditions of a bid at the threshold is the primary requirement, in the instant case, strict adherence to the same was not possible according to both the Committees, because it could have resulted in the rejection of all the bids or it could have eliminated competition. Such a situation certainly is not in public interest. Hence there is every justification for the S.L.S.C. and H.P.C. in exercising power under Clause 34 (28) and relaxing the aforesaid non-essential conditions. 40. Such a situation certainly is not in public interest. Hence there is every justification for the S.L.S.C. and H.P.C. in exercising power under Clause 34 (28) and relaxing the aforesaid non-essential conditions. 40. The objections of the petitioners against the successful bidder M/s. Transstroy -JSC EC UES relating to non-production of documents by JSC EC UES, such as VAT Registration Certificate {Clause 34(11)}; PAN {Clause 34(12)}; Liquid Asset/credit facility/Solvency Certificate {(Clause 30-C-4(a) and (b)}; Declaration regarding the Equipment {(ITB-F-56.00)}; Balance Sheet {(Clause 30-C-2(b)}; counter signatures {(ITB-C-13.3.4)}; and Formats B-2, B-6, B-10, fall in the category of non-mandatory requirements as per the methodology. Hence the decision of the S.L.S.C. and H.P.C. relaxing these conditions must be held to be reasonable and justified. Even the petitioner has given up its contention with regard to the compliance of these requirements. Despite the same, M/s. Transstroy -JSC EC UES has produced POA, Credit Facility/Solvency Certificate, Declaration regarding equipment, certain Balance Sheets, B-2 and B-6 Formats, some of them at the time of the bid and some pursuant to the deficiency notice dated 13.09.2012. 41. Even the S.L.S.C. found the bid of M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES non-responsive only on the following five grounds:- (i) JSC EC UES did not furnish proof of registration with the Registrar of Companies as per Clause 30-A (4); (ii) It did not meet the requirement of Rs.1,564-00 Crores turnover in the annual turnover of Rs.1,800-00 Crores in proportion to 86.9% share in the Joint Venture as required under Clause 30-C (2)(a); (iii) It did not submit Solvency Certificate for a minimum of Rs.100-00 Crores for each member of the JV as required under Clause 30-C (4)(a), though it had filed a Solvency Certificate for Rs.400-00 Crores for the JV; (iv) The bidder did not submit the Declaration as per Format B-24 (c); and (v) It failed to furnish the requisite information in Format B-10. 42. Among the aforesaid 5 objections, the last 2 are non-mandatory conditions, which could not have been a ground against the bidder. The H.P.C. rightly found it to be so and accepted the explanation of the bidder that the concerned material scanned by it was not clear due to low resolution. 42. Among the aforesaid 5 objections, the last 2 are non-mandatory conditions, which could not have been a ground against the bidder. The H.P.C. rightly found it to be so and accepted the explanation of the bidder that the concerned material scanned by it was not clear due to low resolution. Further more, Solvency Certificate for Rs.400-00 Crores from the Bank of Baroda was submitted as per Format B-7 at the time of tender submission and certificate for Rs.100-00 Crores in the name of M/s. Transstroy was submitted on 14.09.2012 from Canara Bank, Secunderabad. JSC EC UES had already submitted credit facility in its name to a tune of Rs.1,010-00 Crores from OJSC Promsvyez, Russia. Even the petitioner had submitted similar document of credit facility from China Construction Bank. 43. The petitioners, therefore, would seek invalidation of the bid of M/s. Transstroy JSC EC UES on the ground that it did not comply with the essential requirements under Clause 30-A (4); 30-C (2)(a); 30-C (4)(a) and (b); and additionally on the ground that JSC EC UES does not have technical experience and it had produced forged and fabricated documents to claim experience. 44. It is to be noted that bidding is not an adversarial litigation. A bidder shall have to show his own merits and withstand the competition. The evaluation of merits and demerits of bidders and selection of the best possible bidder is within the domain of the Bid Authority. So long as the Bid Authority makes its decision on the basis of some relevant material, however small the material is, insufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be a relevant ground to over-rule the decision. In any event, it is not for the Court to re-evaluate the material and replace its own opinion, even if it appears more plausible than the opinion of the Bid Authority. Nonetheless, the petitioner would pursue its contention touching the facts of the case. 45. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is a mandatory requirement for any foreign entity bidding for the work to have registered under the Companies Act with Registrar of Companies and unless proof of such registration is enclosed, the bid is liable to be rejected. Clarification issued with regard to the said condition in the pre-bid conference is relied upon to construe the said condition as mandatory. Clarification issued with regard to the said condition in the pre-bid conference is relied upon to construe the said condition as mandatory. The clarification was to the effect that, for a foreign entity either on its own or as a JV Partner to be eligible for participation in bids should have registration under the Companies Act. The successful bidder Transstroy – JSC EC UES did not submit such registration. Hence, according to the petitioner, the said entity is not eligible for the bid. 46. It is the contention of the State and M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES that the said condition has to be fulfilled by a foreign entity if it is participating in the bid on its own, but not in the case of a partner in JVs. In respect of JVs, fulfillment of Clause 30-A(2) would suffice. Even otherwise, the bidder produced registration in the name of JV styled “Transstroy – JSC EC UES” Private Limited and the lead partner JSC EC UES held 99.90% of shares in it and the same is a sufficient compliance. The Indian partner M/s. Transstroy produced registration with the Registrar of Companies. The HPC, therefore, considered the same as a procedural deficiency and felt that it does not in any way affect the technical and financial capacity of the company. 47. The petitioner, however, would contend that M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES (JV) Private Limited is a separate company formed in connection with execution of a thermal power project sponsored by Singareni Collieries Limited with no other object on its incorporation. The said JV Private Limited is a different company altogether, which cannot be considered as satisfying Clause 30-A(4). Clause 30-A(4) is as follows:- “(4)……… In case of Foreign Agencies/Firms/Company to be eligible for participation in bids, they should have registered their name in India as an Agency/Company with the Registrar of Companies as per the Companies Act of India as on the date of submission of bids. Proof to that effect should be enclosed to the tender.” 48. A clear proposition needs no exposition. The meaning of a Clause has to be ascertained from the plain language used in it and, when it is obscure taking aid from the related provisions. It is to be noted that bids were invited from the domestic as well as international platforms. Even JVs were permitted to bid. A clear proposition needs no exposition. The meaning of a Clause has to be ascertained from the plain language used in it and, when it is obscure taking aid from the related provisions. It is to be noted that bids were invited from the domestic as well as international platforms. Even JVs were permitted to bid. If a JV wants to participate, as per Clause 30-A(1) and (2), one of its member should have registration with the Government of A.P and it would suffice if other members had applied for registration for the time being. No such requirement is mentioned if a foreign agency/ firm/company were to participate in the bidding on its own. But in the case of all such foreign entities registration as per the Indian Companies Act is necessary. From the plain language used in sub-clause (4), which is unambiguous, it is clear that it applies only when a foreign company wants to bid on its own, but not when it participates as a partner in a JV. 49. It is true that in the pre-bid meeting, to a query as to the application of sub-clause (4), the reply was that it was mandatory even for a foreign company, intending to participate either as individual, or a JV partner or as a lead partner of a JV. This clarification cannot be considered as having overriding effect on the provision itself. The scope and ambit of the clause cannot be enlarged by adding something which is not mentioned therein. In fact, by virtue of the requirements under Foreign Exchange Management Law and Section 592 of the Indian Companies Act, it does not appear to be possible for registration of a foreign entity with the Registrar of Companies before securing a contract for execution in India. Thus, sub-clause (4) of Clause 30-A has no application in the case of a foreign company when it is participating as a partner in a JV. 50. It is true, the HPC processed the bids on the basis that sub-clause (4) applies to JV partners also. The yardstick was applied to all the bidders including the successful bidder Transstroy – JSC EC UES. But on that score, it cannot be held that the clause should be applied to a foreign entity to have the registration. 51. Even otherwise, M/s. Transstroy, the Indian partner of the JV admittedly has registration. The yardstick was applied to all the bidders including the successful bidder Transstroy – JSC EC UES. But on that score, it cannot be held that the clause should be applied to a foreign entity to have the registration. 51. Even otherwise, M/s. Transstroy, the Indian partner of the JV admittedly has registration. The foreign partner JSC EC UES produced registration issued in the name of M/s. Transstroy – JSC “EC” UES (JV) Pvt. Ltd. The said certificate was not accepted by the SLSC on the ground that there is a difference in the names of the participants and the objects of incorporation of the company was only to carry out the project of balance of plant package for Singareni Thermal Power Project, but did not include irrigation projects construction of dams etc. The HPC, however, differed from the opinion of the SLSC and considered the requirement under sub-clause (4) as a procedural matter and it is intended as an administrative requirement to ensure accountability of the successful bidder. The said approach cannot be considered as incorrect since it is inconsonance with the methodology adopted by it. Even according to the petitioner and Ex.R8/15 as well, the objects of the company M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES Pvt. Ltd., were amended later to include other works, including irrigation projects, construction of dams, excavations etc. 52. The next core contention of the petitioner is that the bid of M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES does not satisfy the Financial Requirements under Clauses 30-C(1), (1)(a) and (1)(b) and C (2)(a) and C (2)(b), which are as follows: “Clause 30-C (1): The bidder should have minimum annual financial turnover in all Civil Engineering and Hydro-Mechanical works of value not less than Rs.1800 Crores in any one year in the same name and style during last 10 (ten) years (2002-03 to 2011-12) updated by giving 10% simple weightage per year to bring them to 2012-13 price level. Clause 30-C (1) (a) : The bidder should have satisfactorily completed (not less than 90% of contract value) similar works of value not less than Rs.2,250 Crores as a prime contractor or as a lead member in a J.V. in respect of Lead Member of present J.V. in the same name and style during the last 10 financial years (2002-03 to 2011-12) updated by giving 10% simple weightage per year to bring them to 2012-13 price level. The similar works means, Concrete Dams, Earth cum Rock fill Dams, Earth Dams, Rock fill dams, Barrages and Spillways. (Format B-14 & B-14 (a)). Clause 30-C (1)(b): In case of J.V., the lead member should have satisfactorily completed (not less than 90% of contract value) similar works of value not less than the proportionate share of Rs.2,250 Crores equivalent to his share holding in the present J.V., as a prime contractor or lead member in a J.V. in the same name and style during the last ten financial years (2002-03 to 2011-12) updated by giving 10% simple weightage per year to bring them to 2012-13 price level. For instance in a J.V. if the lead member has a share holding of 60% then he should have satisfactorily completed similar works of value not less than Rs.1,350 Crores ((60 x 2250) / 100), in the block period of 10 years to meet this criteria. Clause 30-C (2)(a): In case of J.V., each member should have minimum annual financial turnover in all Civil Engineering and Hydro Mechanical works not less than the proportionate share of Rs.1,800 Crores equivalent to his share holding in the present J.V. in any one year in the same name and style during the last ten financial years (2002-03 to 2011-12) updated by giving 10% simple weightage per year to bring them to 2012-13 price level. In any case, minimum annual financial turnover of the lead member of J.V. shall not be less than Rs.920 Crores and that of other members of J.V. shall not be less than Rs.200 Crores. In any case, minimum annual financial turnover of the lead member of J.V. shall not be less than Rs.920 Crores and that of other members of J.V. shall not be less than Rs.200 Crores. For example, if a J.V. of three members A, B, C with share holding of 60:30:10 participates in the bid, the minimum annual turnover of ‘A’ shall not be less than Rs.1080 Crores (i.e., 0.6 x 1800) and that of ‘B’ shall not be less than Rs.540 Crores (i.e., 0.3 x 1800) and ‘C’ shall not be less than Rs.200 Crores (i.e., 0.1 x 1800 = 180, but minimum is Rs.200 Crores).” Clause 30-C (2)(b): In case of Joint Venture (JV) each other member of joint venture (other than Lead Member) should have minimum annual financial turnover in all Civil Engineering and Hydro-Mechanical works not less than Rs.200 Crores in any one year in the same name and style during last 10 (ten) Financial Years (2002-03 to 2011-12) updated by giving 10% simple weightage per year to bring them to 2012-13 price level. The aforesaid Clauses contemplate that a bidder should have a minimum annual financial turnover of Rs.1,800-00 Crores in any one year during the last 10 years in Civil Engineering and Hydro Mechanical Works and a Member of JV should have not less than its proportionate share equivalent to its shareholding in JV in any one year during the said period. Accordingly, the turnover of JSC EC UES should be not less than Rs.1,564-00 Crores as its share in the JV is 86.9%. It should have Rs.1,955-00 Crores as its share out of the total “similar works value” of Rs.2,250-00 Crores. Specifically, the argument of the petitioner is that JSC EC UES did not satisfy the requirement as its turnover was only Rs.1,402-05 Crores as per the Auditors Report. 53. The offshoot of the aforesaid argument is that the turnover reflected in the Profit and Loss Account for the financial year 2007 of JSC EC UES was derived from sources, such as sale of goods, products, works and services, which are not the same as required under Clause 30-C (1)(a) relating to Civil Engineering and Hydro-Mechanical works. 54. 53. The offshoot of the aforesaid argument is that the turnover reflected in the Profit and Loss Account for the financial year 2007 of JSC EC UES was derived from sources, such as sale of goods, products, works and services, which are not the same as required under Clause 30-C (1)(a) relating to Civil Engineering and Hydro-Mechanical works. 54. Another shade of argument is that the turnover of Rs.2,706.876 Crores and Rs.3,491-68 Crores for the years 2006-07 recorded by the H.P.C. has no mathematical and accounting basis and the same is contrary to the Profit and Loss Account furnished by JSC EC UES, as certified by the Statutory Auditor. Thus, according to the petitioner, the bid of M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES is not valid. 55. The reply of JSC EC UES is that its turnover was wrongly assessed by the S.L.S.C. According to it, the S.L.S.C. calculated the turnover by adopting static figure for conversion of Russian Currency at 1 USD = 29.77 Rubles without further determining the turnover figures as per the conversion rates specified in Clause 34 (25) of the Tender Document. The clarification issued by it pursuant to the notice dated 12.09.2012 was not properly appreciated in determining the turnover. It would fulfill the requirement if properly determined, taking the IMF rate for conversion of Rubles into US Dollars and US Dollars into Indian Rupees. The H.P.C., which noticed that even according to the S.L.S.C., JSC EC UES had completed “similar works” worth more than Rs.1,564-00 Crores, rightly found its bid as responsive. Therefore, according to M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES, it has fully complied with the requirement. 56. There is no dispute that the Statutory Auditor’s Certificate and the Profit and Loss Statement, which is a statutory prescribed form in Russia, 2007 turnover was 65,78,254 thousand Rubles. In its response to the notice dated 12.09.2012, it was explained how it would comply with the requirement of Rs.1,564-00 Crores turnover. Its specific case is that the turnover has to be determined in accordance with Clause 34 (25) of the Tender Document. Clause 34 (25) is as follows: “The conversion rate of foreign currencies shall be the daily representative exchange rates published by the International Monetary Fund for the relevant date”. As per the aforesaid clause, conversion rate “as per the relevant date” shall be taken into consideration. Clause 34 (25) is as follows: “The conversion rate of foreign currencies shall be the daily representative exchange rates published by the International Monetary Fund for the relevant date”. As per the aforesaid clause, conversion rate “as per the relevant date” shall be taken into consideration. There is no dispute between the parties that the end of a financial year, on which date the accounts are reported, is the relevant date. In the case of Russia, the financial year is from 1st January to 31st December, whereas the Indian financial year starts from 1st April of the year and ends with 31st March of the succeeding year. At the relevant time, the IMF exchange rate for Rubles into Dollars was 24.5462 and the exchange rate of Indian Rupee into USD was 39.41. Therefore, the turnover in terms of Indian Rupees was Rs.1,056-17 Crores. Adding 10% simple weightage per year to bring the same to 2012-13 price level as per Clause 30-C (2)(a), the figure would be Rs.1,584-24 Crores. The said turnover is more than the required turnover of Rs.1,564-00 Crores. Even the S.L.S.C. did not dispute this figure. It simply declined to accept the figure stating that it is an after-thought. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the H.P.C. regarding fulfillment of financial turnover by the JSC EC UES cannot be found fault with. 57. The contention that JSC EC UES did not fulfill “similar works” requirement and there is no mathematical and accounting basis for the H.P.C. to record the turnover is without substance. The JSC EC UES has submitted the details of works as required in Formats B-14 and B-14(a) (Ex.R6/1), in addition to the Profit and Loss Account. The S.L.S.C. assessed the turnover of M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES at Rs.8,652-45 Crores during the period of 10 years, out of which the turnover of JSC EC UES is Rs.8,480-84 Crores. It worked out the yearwise work at Rs.1,592-28 Crores for 2005-2006 updated to Rs.2,706-876 Crores, and for the year 2006-2007 the turnover was recorded at Rs.2,182-30 Crores updated to Rs.3,491-68 Crores. The assessment was accepted as correct by the H.P.C. also. 58. It is true that the income shown in the Profit and Loss Account for the year 2007 was from all sources, including sale of goods, products, works and services. The assessment was accepted as correct by the H.P.C. also. 58. It is true that the income shown in the Profit and Loss Account for the year 2007 was from all sources, including sale of goods, products, works and services. The Profit and Loss Account is a statement submitted to the Russian authorities in prescribed Format2 as per the Russian Accounting Standard norms. It covers the work and services connected with the construction of Engineering structures and Hydro-technical constructions. The document, therefore, cannot be discarded merely because the break-up figures from each source were not shown. In matters of this nature, it is not possible to adopt a micro-scopic and minute approach to each and every requirement. 59. The next core contention of the petitioner is that to claim experience, both under technical and financial requirements, JSC EC UES, the foreign partner, has produced forged and fraudulent documents, as such the bidder has no experience. It is alleged that the three certificates relied on by the JSC EC UES viz., (1) Certificate of Construction of Bureyskaya HEP issued by M/s. JSC Bureyagesstroy, (2) Certificate of Execution of Work of Santgtuda-1 HPP issued by Sangtudinskaya HPP-1, and (3) Certificate of Execution of Work of Zelenchukskaya HPP issued by Zelenchukskaya HPP, are forged and fraudulent documents. 60. Bureyskaya HEP is a project on the river Bureya. M/s. JSC Bureyagesstroy was entrusted with the work of execution of the said project. JSC EC UES has claimed experience on the basis of a certificate dated 11.08.2011 issued by M/s. Bureyagesstroy through its Deputy Director, Legal Affairs Mr. A.V. Novikov, attested by Indian Embassy in Moscow as well as by the Chambers of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The petitioner would allege that the said Certificate is a forged and fabricated document and the same should have been discarded from consideration. In support of the contention, it would rely on a reply letter dated 03.10.2012 (Ex.P-5) addressed to the Indian Partner M/s. Soma by Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov, Deputy General Director of M/s. JSC Bureyagesstroy. It would also rely on the letters addressed by the same person to the Second Secretary (Consular), Embassy of India at Moscow on 15.10.2012 (Ex.P-9) and letter dated 16.10.2012 (Ex.P-10) addressed to the First Secretary (Economic Commercial Wing), Embassy of India at Moscow, wherein it was stated that the Certificate dated 11.08.2011 signed by Mr. It would also rely on the letters addressed by the same person to the Second Secretary (Consular), Embassy of India at Moscow on 15.10.2012 (Ex.P-9) and letter dated 16.10.2012 (Ex.P-10) addressed to the First Secretary (Economic Commercial Wing), Embassy of India at Moscow, wherein it was stated that the Certificate dated 11.08.2011 signed by Mr. A.V. Novikov was forged and fabricated. A communication received by Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russian Federation stating that the attestation signature of its Authorised Person Mayantsey does not correspond to the specimen signature of the said person is also sought to be relied upon. Reference is made to a letter dated 06.11.2012 (Ex.P-13) addressed by M/s. JSC Bureyagesstroy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russian Federation and Consulate of Republic India in Moscow about the alleged forged certificate. The petitioner would state that JSC EC UES participated in a bid for execution of Shapurkhandi Dam Project in Punjab on the basis of the letter signed by Mr. A.V. Novikov and it suffered rejection of bid after it was brought to the notice of the Punjab Dam Authority that the letter was forged. Letter dated 23.11.2012 addressed by Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov to Shapurkhandi Project authorities is also referred in this regard. Basing on these documents, it is contended that the experience claimed by JSC EC UES, the foreign JV partner, is bogus. 61. Similarly, the correspondence of M/s. Bureyagesstroy, Sangtuda HPP is sought to be relied on to prove the alleged bogus experience claimed by JSC EC UES. 62. JSC EC UES has denied the aforesaid allegations and has asserted that the documents produced by it in support of the claim for experience are genuine. It is stated that the petitioner is a partner of M/s. Bureyagesstroy and it is executing certain projects in joint venture with it and it has created certain documents with the help of some officers of M/s. Bureyagesstroy to disown the Certificate dated 11.08.2011 validly issued to it only to see that it is disqualified. It has relied on the certificate issued by Rus Hydro, JSC “Rus Hydro” “Branch Bureyskaya HEP”, dated 17.10.2012 (Ex.R8/4) and another certificate dated 26.10.2012 issued by the Russian Federation and Ministry of Industry and Trade issued to respondent No.5 on 30.10.2012 (Ex.R8/6). It has relied on the certificate issued by Rus Hydro, JSC “Rus Hydro” “Branch Bureyskaya HEP”, dated 17.10.2012 (Ex.R8/4) and another certificate dated 26.10.2012 issued by the Russian Federation and Ministry of Industry and Trade issued to respondent No.5 on 30.10.2012 (Ex.R8/6). It would further state that the letter dated 14.11.2012 (Ex.P-12) addressed by Mayantsey of Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russian Federation to Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov, Deputy Director of M/s. Bureyagesstroy, was prepared on the influence of the petitioner. It would contend that the petitioner never raised any objection at the time of submission of bids when the documents of bids of all the participants were made available and it is purposefully and intentionally raising the allegations with a mala-fide intention. The petitioner has orchested the correspondence to achieve its intended result of depriving it of the award of contract. 63. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner, on the one hand, and M/s. Transstroy JSC EC UES, on the other, are predominantly factual disputes. This Court, in exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an enquiry into the disputed question of facts. It can only consider the preponderance of probability of the case. It would have been a different matter if the petitioner had taken the Common Law remedy route and pressed the documents by exposing them to the opposite parties and put them to the crucible of judgment. 64. Be that as it may, it is well settled that mere production of a document does not amount to proof. No material can be relied upon to establish a contested fact, which is spoken to by a person, who is competent to speak about it, unless he is subjected to scrutiny by the party against whom the fact is sought to be used. The burden of proof is heavy on a party, who seeks to use a document in its favour to prove its contents. The party has to affirmatively prove the fact before it is used against another party. 65. The petitioner, apart from relying on the said correspondence, has not filed any other reliable material. The correspondence is not conclusive proof of the allegation. A deeper consideration of the correspondence and the circumstances surrounding the same would give rise to a reasonable inference that the correspondence is not reliable. 66. 65. The petitioner, apart from relying on the said correspondence, has not filed any other reliable material. The correspondence is not conclusive proof of the allegation. A deeper consideration of the correspondence and the circumstances surrounding the same would give rise to a reasonable inference that the correspondence is not reliable. 66. It is to be noted that these allegations were never made before the price bids were opened and only after the petitioner was found L4, there being no chance of its winning the contract, it started making the allegation. 67. Admittedly, M/s. Soma is a business partner of Bureyagesstroy in Shapurkhandi Project in Punjab. This fact is evident from the letter dated 6.11.2012 (Ex.P.13) addressed by the Deputy Director General Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov on behalf of the Bureyagesstroy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation and the Consulate of Republic of India, Moscow. 68. M/s. SOMA Enterprises did not raise its little finger ever since the bids were invited on 16.04.2012; not even when the matter went through the litigation in the High Court until the price bid of M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES along with 2 others was opened on 01.10.2012. One cannot believe that the petitioner was not aware that JSC EC UES was a bidder along with Indian Partner M/s. Transstroy and that it was claiming experience through Bureyagesstroy, which is its own partner in a venture in Punjab. On the other hand, the petitioner was aware of the said fact, which is evident from its letter dated 5.10.2012 addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief of the ISPP Project in which it was stated that the certificate dated 11.08.2011 was a document uploaded with the bid of M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES. M/s. SOMA Enterprises, feigning ignorance of the said fact, addressed a letter dated 3.10.2012 to Bureyagesstroy, and Bureyagesstroy readily responded on the same day through letter written by the Deputy General Director, Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov stating that Mr. A.V. Novikov, its Deputy Director of Legal Affairs, did not sign the experience certificate dated 11.08.2011 and the letter was fabricated using old letter head of the Company and the JSC EC UES did not execute the construction work of Bureyskaya HPP project. This letter does not disclose the basis on which he reached the conclusion. A.V. Novikov, its Deputy Director of Legal Affairs, did not sign the experience certificate dated 11.08.2011 and the letter was fabricated using old letter head of the Company and the JSC EC UES did not execute the construction work of Bureyskaya HPP project. This letter does not disclose the basis on which he reached the conclusion. It is not even disclosed that it was put to Mr. Novikov and got affirmation from him. 69. Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov of Bureyagesstroy addressed similar letters dated 15.10.2012 and 16.10.2012 to Second Secretary, Embassy of India, Moscow and the First Secretary, Economic and Commercial Wing, Embassy of India, Moscow. Significantly, none of these letters was marked to JSC EC UES and correspondence was being carried on behind its back. On the other hand, the First Secretary (Commercial), Indian Embassy, responded through his letter dated 20.11.2012 stating that the experience certificates were first got attested from Chamber of Commerce and Industry and subsequently it had verified the signature of officers of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, but not the contents of the documents. The First Secretary, thereupon, forwarded the contents received from Bureyagesstroy to the employer for information. 70. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is difficult to accept the allegation as to forgery and fabrication of the experience certificate, as credible. 71. Be that as it may, the State did not fail in its duty to get the allegation enquired into in view of the controversy. It has made sincere efforts in this regard. It constituted a team vide G.O.Rt.No.32, Irrigation and CAD (PW-M&MI CA-II) Department, dated 15.01.2013 to undertake the verification of foreign works executed by JSC EC UES. The team consisted of two Superintending Engineers of the Irrigation Department. 72. The visit of the team to Russia is not in dispute. It first visited the office of JSC EC UES and was satisfied about the correctness of its address. The team collected the agreements pertaining to the works of Bureyskaya HPP Construction, Sangtudinska HPP-1 Construction and Zelenchukskaya HPP Construction. In order to verify the same, the team proceeded to the project site of Bureyskaya HPP at Talakan at Amur region. The project authorities at Talakan directed the team to visit the office of Bureyagesstroy at Blagoveshchensk for details. The team then approached the office of Bureyagesstroy, Blagoveshchensk and met the Dy. General Director one Mr. Pavel M. Starodubtsev. In order to verify the same, the team proceeded to the project site of Bureyskaya HPP at Talakan at Amur region. The project authorities at Talakan directed the team to visit the office of Bureyagesstroy at Blagoveshchensk for details. The team then approached the office of Bureyagesstroy, Blagoveshchensk and met the Dy. General Director one Mr. Pavel M. Starodubtsev. The team asked him to get the version that the experience certificate was not genuine, verify/deny by its author Mr. A.V. Novikov. However, the request was not acceded to stating that Mr. Novikov was on leave and he could not make the team speak with him. Mr. Pavel M. Starodubtsev did not even confirm or deny the existence of the agreements. Since Bureyagesstroy did not confirm the veracity of the agreements, the team had to rely on the payments made to the JSC EC UES under the agreements as corroborative evidence. 73. There is no reason to cast any doubt on the report of the team. The members of the team are responsible Government servants of the rank of Superintending Engineers who were deputed with the said task. The petitioner, however, would endeavour to cast a stigma on the team by alleging that the members of the team received the hospitality by staying in a hotel Crowne Plaza reserved by M/s. Transstroy (India) Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner, therefore, would state that the report is biased. Except filing a copy of email sent by M/s. Transstroy to the hotel for reservation showing the names of the team members, no material is filed to show that the members actually enjoyed the hospitality. In fact, the State had declined the request of the bidders to accompany them or in any way involve in the verification process through letter dated 26.01.2013 of the Engineer-in-Chief, ISPP. Further, G.O.Rt.No.32, dated 15.01.2013 discloses that a sum of Rs.12 lakhs was sanctioned towards the expenses of the team which can be taken note to say that the team did not enjoy the hospitality of M/s. Transstroy. 74. The petitioner would rely on the affidavit of Mr. A.V. Novikov, which is filed in the writ petition. For two reasons, no reliance can be placed on it – (1) Mr. A.V. Novikov failed to attend before the visiting team and confirm the allegation; and (2) affidavit itself is not evidence of a disputed fact. 75. 74. The petitioner would rely on the affidavit of Mr. A.V. Novikov, which is filed in the writ petition. For two reasons, no reliance can be placed on it – (1) Mr. A.V. Novikov failed to attend before the visiting team and confirm the allegation; and (2) affidavit itself is not evidence of a disputed fact. 75. From the discussion as above, it is not possible to hold that the Experience Certificate dated 08.11.2011 relied upon by JSC EC UES, the foreign JV partner, is a forged and fabricated document. 76. The petitioner would contend that JSC EC UES has no practical experience in the field. It would refer to the contents of the agreements dated 16.12.2003, 10.02.2004 and 03.12.2004 (Ex.P-26) and argue that JSC EC UES was only an Agent appointed by Bureyskaya Construction Investment Project for a limited purpose of factual reporting of the Project Construction, but no construction work was entrusted to it. Specifically, with reference to the agreements dated 10.02.2004 and 03.12.2004, it would contend that under the said contracts, M/s. Bureyagesstroy was appointed as a General Contractor and JSC EC UES was only a customer acting on its behalf. The work related to the execution of construction of complex, assembly of work, Hydrolic aggregates etc. 77. M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES would deny the aforesaid allegations and assert that it was involved in the execution of work. It would rely on the payments received by it under the aforesaid agreements. 78. It is true that Bureyskaya HPP appointed JSC EC UES as its Agent under a contract on 14.11.2003. By a later amendment dated 16.12.2003, “the Facilities Construction Firm of Engineering Centre UES JSC” was added as a construction contract, thereby it was involved in the construction of the Project. The annual report of Bureyskaya HPP (Ex.R8/12) shows that payment was made towards construction and execution of Hydro Electric Power Station under the amended agreement dated 16.12.2003. Involvement of JSC EC UES is also shown in the annual report (Ex.R8/12). Work Experience Certificate dated 11.08.2011 was issued after execution of the works and commissioning of six Radiaxial Hydro Electrical Units of 335 MW capacity. The construction of Bureyskaya HPP through work orders dated 16.12.2003, 10.02.2004 and 03.12.2004 were certified by the Russian Federation Ministry of Industry and Trade Federal State–Budget–Funded Institution “Federal Center for Industrial Development Support, Russia” by letter dated 26.10.2012 (Ex.R8/4). The construction of Bureyskaya HPP through work orders dated 16.12.2003, 10.02.2004 and 03.12.2004 were certified by the Russian Federation Ministry of Industry and Trade Federal State–Budget–Funded Institution “Federal Center for Industrial Development Support, Russia” by letter dated 26.10.2012 (Ex.R8/4). Apart from the above, the delegation sent by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to verify the genuineness of the work experience also certified the genuineness of the work executed by it. 79. Similarly, on the basis the letter dated 22.11.2012 of the General Director, HPP Sangtuda-I, dis-owning the letter dated 12.08.2011 addressed to the 2nd respondent and others, the petitioner would seek to contend that the work relating to the said project had not been executed by JSC EC UES. However, it is to be seen that the said letter did not dispute the execution of the project by JSC EC UES. On the other hand, the payments made to it under Ex.R8/18 would show that the work had been executed by JSC EC UES. 80. Further more, the Indian Visiting Team got confirmation about the execution of work by JSC EC UES from Ms. Khudoei Becove Magine, Chief Representative of Sangtudinskaya HPP and also Mr. Sergey N. Kobtsev, General Director of Sangtuda-I. 81. The petitioner has given up the contest against the genuineness of the experience of JSC EC UES relating to Zelenchukskaya HPP. 82. From the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that JSC EC UES has no experience in the execution of works. 83. For the reasons as above, this Court is of the view that the decision to award the contract in favour of M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES cannot be found fault with. 84. The case of the petitioner against M/s. Madhucon-Sino Hydro JV, who is L2, need not be gone into in this writ petition, since the award of contract in favour of M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES is upheld and a separate W.P.No.7520 of 2013 has been filed by M/s. Madhucon-Sino Hydro JV seeking cancellation of the contract and to award the same in its favour. W.P.No.7520 of 2013 : 85. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Madhucon-Sino-Hydro Joint Venture of India and Chinese partners. It quoted Rs.4091,05,40.000.00 (-13.2700%) and stood as L2. W.P.No.7520 of 2013 : 85. This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Madhucon-Sino-Hydro Joint Venture of India and Chinese partners. It quoted Rs.4091,05,40.000.00 (-13.2700%) and stood as L2. The only contention raised by it against M/s. Transstroy JV Partner is that it did not meet the minimum technical qualification prescribed in Clause 30-B (3). 86. According to the petitioner, M/s. Transstroy JV Partner executed only 3,58,320 L.Cum against the required extent of 3,80,000 L.Cum. It has relied on the figures relating to the year 2006 and 2006-07, in the following manner. JV Partner Work Year Concrete work UES Sangtudinskhaya HPP-1 2006 1,08,000 cum UES Bureyskaya HPP 2006 2,00,000 cum UES Zelenchuskay 2006 0 Transstroy Sri Komaram Bhim 2006-07 15,720 cum Transstroy Chagallu barrage 2006-07 86,500 cum Total 4,10,220 cum 87. The petitioner would state that Chagallu Barrage work was executed by M/s. Transstroy in a Joint Venture with Navayuga with a share of 3.5%. The information furnished by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide letter No.AB/RTI/A.1/590, dated 14.11.2012 is placed reliance upon to show the said share of M/s. Transstroy. As per the information furnished by the Executive Engineer, I & CAD Department, the total concrete barrage work executed by the JV is 36,017 L.Cum only. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the quantity of work executed by M/s. Transstroy was only 1,261 L.Cum. On that basis, the total concrete work of JV UES and Transstroy works out to 3,24,981 L.Cum. (3,08,000 L.Cum of UES + 1,261 L.Cum of M/s. Transstroy + 15,720 L.Cum of M/s. Transstroy). Therefore, according to the petitioner M/s. Transstroy UES JV does not satisfy the requirement of 3,80,000 L.Cum. 88. Alternatively, the petitioner would argue that even if Chagallu Barrage work is taken as 86,500 L.Cum., the share of M/s. Transstroy at 3.5% would be 3,028 L.Cum. only and, in that event, the total work executed by the JV would be only 3,26,748 L.Cum. and at 40% share as claimed by M/s. Transstroy, the total work would be 3,58,320 L.Cum. 89. Thus, according to the petitioner, M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES JV would fall short of the required quantity of 3,80,000 L.Cum. 90. Before considering the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a look at Clause 30-B (3). and at 40% share as claimed by M/s. Transstroy, the total work would be 3,58,320 L.Cum. 89. Thus, according to the petitioner, M/s. Transstroy - JSC EC UES JV would fall short of the required quantity of 3,80,000 L.Cum. 90. Before considering the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a look at Clause 30-B (3). The said clause is as follows – 3) The bidder should have executed Minimum quantities in a year during last Ten Financial Years (2002-03 to 2011-12) (Format-B.15) a) EWE, Embankment and Rock Fill – 100 lakh Cum b) C.C, RCC and PSC – 3.80 Lakh Cum c) Gates (vertical & radical) with any kind of hoisting and its elements – 2200 M.T. As per the above clause, execution of minimum quantity of work can be in any one year in the last 10 years, and it can be different years for different types (a), (b), (c) and (d) works. The condition does not require that all types of works should have been executed in the same year put together. Further, it is for the bidder to choose any one year in the last 10 years and show that it has executed the work, and it is not for the rival bidder to choose a particular year and contend that the work has not been executed in that particular year. 91. According to M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV, it has executed the work in the year 2005-06 and has shown the same in the Formats uploaded by it. Its case is that the share of M/s. Transstroy in Chagallu Barrage was 40% under its supplementary agreement dated 01.02.2005 (Ex.P-17), but, in fact, it executed 100% work by itself. In Form B-15, the following figures are shown for the year 2005-06. The aforesaid figures which relate to 2005-06 work is not in dispute. (a) Chagallu Barrage 27,750 (b) Sri Komaram Bhim Project 8,400 (c) Sangtudinskaya HPP-1 Hydro 2,50,000 (d) Bureyskaya HPP Hydro 3,08,010 Total 5,94,160 = 5.942 L.Cum. 92. If the contention of M/s. Transstroy is accepted as correct, the work executed by M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV would be 5.942 L.Cum. On the other hand, if the share of M/s. Transstroy is taken as 40%, it would be 5.725 L.Cum. Therefore, either way, it would satisfy the minimum requirement of 3.80 L.Cum. 93. 92. If the contention of M/s. Transstroy is accepted as correct, the work executed by M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV would be 5.942 L.Cum. On the other hand, if the share of M/s. Transstroy is taken as 40%, it would be 5.725 L.Cum. Therefore, either way, it would satisfy the minimum requirement of 3.80 L.Cum. 93. The aforesaid Clause 30-B (3) does not contemplate that the minimum work should be executed by any one member of the Joint Venture, nor does it stipulate that a minimum quantity of work should be executed by each member. What is contemplated is that the work should have been executed by the “Bidder”, meaning thereby that it would be sufficient if anyone of the Member of the JV has executed the minimum required quantity of work. The work executed by JSC EC UES, the foreign JV partner is 5.58 L.Cum. (Sangtudinskaya HPP-1 Hydro : 2,50,000 + Bureyskaya HPP Hydro : 3,08,010). 94. Therefore, in any event, taking this fact into consideration, it can be stated that M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV has fulfilled the requirement. Even the S.L.S.C. also found that it had executed 5.72 L.Cum. work. 95. The petitioner would contend that the minimum 100 L.Cum. quantity of work relating to E.W.E., Embankment and Rockfill was not executed by M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV. It would contend that M/s. Transstroy’s share in Chagallu Barrage work was only 3.5% and hence, its claim that it executed 15,70,000 L.Cum. work is incorrect. However, applying the aforesaid calculation relating to the execution of concrete work, it can be seen that if the work executed by M/s. Transstroy is taken as 100%, the total work would be 130.4197 L.Cum., and at 40% share it would be 113.0683 L.Cum. If the share of M/s. Transstroy is excluded and even if the work of JSC EC UES alone is taken into consideration, it would be 101.50 L.Cum. Even the S.L.S.C. has accepted that M/s. Transstroy had executed 113.39 L.Cum. work. 96. The aforesaid discussion would clearly show that M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV has fulfilled the requirement under Clause 30-B (3). 97. The petitioner, being the L2, except challenging the contract awarded to M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV on the aforesaid ground, has not shown how it is entitled for being chosen in preference to the later. 98. 97. The petitioner, being the L2, except challenging the contract awarded to M/s. Transstroy – JSC EC UES JV on the aforesaid ground, has not shown how it is entitled for being chosen in preference to the later. 98. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in this writ petition. PUBLIC INTEREST :- 99. “Polavaram Project”, as it is popularly known, has been the peoples’ dream for decades. It has been conceived with an avowed object of irrigating lakhs of acres of barren land by diverting water, which would otherwise go waste into the sea, and to bring prosperity and happiness to millions of people. Atleast now, the project has reached the present stage due to the seamless and fervent efforts of the State Government. The peoples’ dream would have come true with 1/4th of the present cost if the project had happened before. Atleast now, it is worthwhile to save Rs.600-00 Crores, which is by no means a small amount, by accepting the present award of contract. The project has eluded the people so long for no fault of theirs. It cannot afford to wait longer. CONCLUSION : 100. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.