JUDGMENT By Court: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision of the respondents of accepting the technical bid of the respondent No. 6 as valid and declaring it as L-1. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from allotting the work in question to the respondent No. 6 and also to hold the petitioner technically qualified and direct the respondents to allot the work in question to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents mainly on the ground of violation of the terms of the bid published by the National Highway Project, Government of Jharkhand being Bid No. 02/2010-11 dated 16.12.2010 for widening two lane and improvement in KM 25.6 to 79.147 of NH 98 (Patna, Aurangabad -Chhattarpur -Parwa More Road) in the State of Jharkhand under LWE scheme for a value of Rs. 5233.80 Lacs (Annexure - 1). 3. The petitioner contended that the said tender was to be decided in two parts, technical bid and then financial bid. According to the terms of the NIT, in order to qualify for financial bid / price part, the tenderer had to qualify in technical bid. Altogether eleven tenderers participated in the said tender by submitting their offers on 27.1.2011. All technical bids were opened on 14.2.2011. In support of the prescribed minimum qualification / experience, the respondent No. 6 had submitted the certificate dated 10.12.2008 issued by the National Highways Authority of India. The certificate mentioned that the work in question was allotted to the respondent No. 6 under Agreement No. NHAI/PIU/PLN/2005/PCK-VI/Contractor/D-806. The certificate mentioned the value of the work, the date of completion etc. in detail. The certificate was accepted in considering the technical bid of the respondent No. 6. However, the same was not a genuine certificate, as the said work was not awarded to the respondent No. 6, rather the said work was awarded under the aforesaid agreement to one Daelin Industrial Corporation Ltd. -Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. (JV). Some contractors including the petitioner questioned the genuineness of the experience certificate of the respondent No. 6 and also of the other bidders and requested the Chief Engineer to verify the same. But before receiving the verification report of the experience certificates submitted by the tenderers, the Evaluation Committee started evaluation of the legal bids of the tenderers. Ltd. (JV). Some contractors including the petitioner questioned the genuineness of the experience certificate of the respondent No. 6 and also of the other bidders and requested the Chief Engineer to verify the same. But before receiving the verification report of the experience certificates submitted by the tenderers, the Evaluation Committee started evaluation of the legal bids of the tenderers. That was also noted by the respondent No. 4. He informed the Chief Engineer by letter dated 21.5.2011 (Annexure -5) that the verification report of experience certificates has not been received. In spite of the same, the Evaluation Committee comprising of five members again took up the technical bids of all the eleven bidders for technical evaluation and declared nine bidders including the respondent No. 6 as qualified. The respondent No. 6 was also declared technically qualified despite the said objection and doubt raised by the petitioner and others regarding the genuineness of its experience certificate. The respondent No. 5 by his letter dated 10.6.2011 informed the minutes of the meeting of the Evaluation Committee dated 10.6.2011 to the Chief Engineer-cum-Chairman, Evaluation Committee again requesting him for verification of the experience certificate of the remaining three bidders including the petitioner (Annexures -6 & 6/1). However, without paying heed upon the said objection, the respondents opened the price bids before receiving the verification report of experience certificate of the respondent No. 6 and by the decision of the Evaluation Committee dated 24.6.2011 (Annexure - 7/1) arbitrarily and illegally not only declared the respondent No. 6 as L-1, but allowed the respondent No. 6 also to unlawfully modify the price quoted in the bid ignoring the provisions of Clause 22 of the Standard Bidding Document. In the original bid, the respondent No. 6 had quoted its price as Rs. 56,48,95,196.9/-, but a modified price bid of Rs. 54,79,48,340.99/-was shown quoted by the respondent No. 6 and the said price bid was accepted as the price bid of the respondent No. 6. Such modification / alteration is not permissible as per Clause 22 of the Standard Bidding Document. The petitioner, who was technically qualified and had quoted the lowest price for the work in question, was arbitrary discarded. 54,79,48,340.99/-was shown quoted by the respondent No. 6 and the said price bid was accepted as the price bid of the respondent No. 6. Such modification / alteration is not permissible as per Clause 22 of the Standard Bidding Document. The petitioner, who was technically qualified and had quoted the lowest price for the work in question, was arbitrary discarded. Accepting the said technical bid and the price bid of the respondent No. 6 is wholly arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the Standard Bidding Document and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the decision of the respondents in allotting the work based thereon, is not legally sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the facts and materials on record clearly reveal that arbitrary decision was taken by the Evaluation Committee contrary to the prescribed terms and conditions of Standard Bidding Document and on the basis of a forged document submitted by the respondent No. 6 only in order to unlawfully favour the respondent No. 6 and discard the other bidders including the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the Evaluation Committee had taken the decision in a hurry without waiting for the authentication of the experience certificate of the respondent No. 6. Due to the defect in the technical bid, the respondent No. 6 cannot be said to be a responsive bidder and its bid was liable for summary rejection. Learned counsel submitted that even if it is accepted that the experience certificate produced by the respondent No. 6 was valid, the experience earned by it was for the benefit of the joint venture and the same cannot be accepted as the experience certificate individually of the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6, thus, from any angle cannot be said to be a responsive bidder and allotment of work in question to the said respondent is thoroughly illegal and arbitrary and the entire process of the Evaluation Committee is vitiated and unsustainable. Learned counsel further submitted that since the work in question was illegally allotted to the respondent No. 6 ignoring the valid bid of the petitioner and the work is at the verge of completion, the petitioner is entitled for the margin of the profit accrued from the work. Learned counsel further submitted that since the work in question was illegally allotted to the respondent No. 6 ignoring the valid bid of the petitioner and the work is at the verge of completion, the petitioner is entitled for the margin of the profit accrued from the work. The petitioner is entitled for the said benefit also in view of the interim order of this Court that any action taken in the matter, shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. 5. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents by filing three sets of counter affidavit. All the respondents have emphatically stated that the writ petition is frivolous and baseless and all the steps were taken by the Evaluation Committee in accordance with law. The respondent No. 6 has required eligibility, qualification and experience and all the valid bids supported by the documents were evaluated by the Evaluation Committee in presence of nine bidders and the members of the Evaluation Committee and after due scrutiny of all the relevant facts as well as the documents brought before the Evaluation Committee, the final decision was taken for allotting the work in question to the respondent No. 6. 6. First counter affidavit with the aforesaid grounds and purports has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 7. Second counter affidavit is of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5. Third counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 6. 7. In the counter affidavits filed by the main contesting respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6, it has been, inter alia, stated that all the prescribed guidelines of MORT&H have been followed. The tender for the aforesaid work was invited by the State Road Construction Department, Jharkhand. Evaluation of the tenders was made by the Evaluation Committee headed by the Chief Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORT&H) with the other members representing the financial division, Regional Officers of MORT&H and State Road Construction Department. Eleven bidders had submitted their bids, but out of them, only nine were declared technically responsive as per the provisions and clauses of Standard Bidding Document (SBD) vide the minutes of meeting dated 10.6.2011 (Annexure -B to the counter affidavit filed by R -2, 3 & 5). In the said minutes, the Evaluation Committee has also specifically mentioned that authentication of work experience was initiated by State PWD. In the said minutes, the Evaluation Committee has also specifically mentioned that authentication of work experience was initiated by State PWD. However, response was received only in respect of six bidders even after lapse of two months and in view of delay in getting verification report, resulting in lapse of bid security, the Evaluation Committee recommended verification of work experience in respect of successful bidders before issuing the letter of acceptance. Thereafter, the bids were considered and after due examination and evaluation of financial bids of all the technically qualified bidders, the decision regarding the lowest responsive bidder was taken by the Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 24.6.2011 held in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. The financial bids of all technically qualified bidders including M/S Dinesh Chandra R. Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. - respondent No. 6 were opened. The Ministry by its Letter No. RW/NH/12037/66/2010/JH/LWE dated 11.8.2011 also clarified that the modification to the financial bid from the respondent No. 6 was received separately along with technical and financial bids before the deadline for submission of bids and duly singed and recorded at the time of opening of technical bids. The discount offered by the bidder is in the modification to the financial bid and is to be applied on the bid price mentioned in ‘Form of Bid’ and ‘Priced BOQ’ in the financial bid. The financial bid including the modification to the financial bid submitted by the respondent No. 6 along with technical bid was within the deadline of submission of bids and was without any material deviation and as such it was considered as substantially responsive bid by the Evaluation Committee. The experience certificate submitted by the respondent No. 6 was also authenticated by the issuing authority i.e. National Highways Authority of India. The bids were evaluated by the Evaluation Committee strictly in accordance with the provisions of S.B.D and in transparent manner in presence of the representatives of the bidders and the members of the Evaluation Committee. The petitioner was the second lowest bidder and as such the said work could not have been allotted to him. Having remained unsuccessful, he has made frivolous and baseless allegations and questioned the evaluation process on the allegations which are unfounded. 8. Mr. Y. N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. The petitioner was the second lowest bidder and as such the said work could not have been allotted to him. Having remained unsuccessful, he has made frivolous and baseless allegations and questioned the evaluation process on the allegations which are unfounded. 8. Mr. Y. N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5 and learned J.C to A.A.G appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 7 have thoroughly denied the allegations and the grounds taken by the petitioner and have submitted that the High Power Evaluation Committee had scrutinized all technical bids and financial bids. The documents furnished by the bidders were also securitized and verified. On verification, the documents including the experience certificate produced by the respondent No. 6 were found genuine. The respondent No. 6 was found substantially responsive bidder and as such the bid was decided in his favour. There is, thus, no valid ground for challenging the bid of the respondent No. 6. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 10. On perusal of the documents brought on record by the parties, I find that a High Power Evaluation Committee was constituted for processing the tender in question, which was headed by the Chief Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The petitioner’s main allegation against the respondent No. 6 is that the work experience certificate submitted by the said respondent is forged and the respondents have allotted the work in question to the said respondent without any authentication of the said certificate. Though a letter was brought on record dated 17.7.2011 to show that the said certificate was verified and found authenticated, the same is a post facto verification after the decision was taken and as such the entire process becomes vitiated and is liable to be set aside. It has been further submitted that even if the work experience certificate of the respondent No. 6 is accepted as genuine, the same will be a certificate relevant for the joint venture and the benefit thereof cannot be given to the respondent No. 6. 11. The said objections of the petitioner were, in fact, examined by the High Level Evaluation Committee. Proper reply was given to the petitioner by letters dated 13.7.2011 and 11.8.2011 (Annexure -D). 11. The said objections of the petitioner were, in fact, examined by the High Level Evaluation Committee. Proper reply was given to the petitioner by letters dated 13.7.2011 and 11.8.2011 (Annexure -D). In the said letters, it has been stated that the Evaluation Committee strictly examined all the documents and found the respondent No. 6 substantially responsible in accordance with the requirement of the Standard Bid Document. The said reply has been sent on the basis of a letter written by the competent officer of the National Highways Authority of India. In spite of the said authentication report, the petitioner has not brought anything on record to rebut or falsify the same. Whether a particular bid is a responsive bid, is to be decided by the High Level Evaluation Committee and the Committee after due scrutiny has found the bid of the respondent No. 6 as technically and financially responsive and the work in question was allotted to the respondent No. 6 on the basis of the decision taken by the High Level Evaluation Committee. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot enter into and decide any disputed facts and allegations, particularly, when there is no document or material on record to rebut the report of the statutory authority and tarnish the decision of the High Level Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee has replied almost all the objections raised by the petitioner supplying speaking reasons and the supporting documents. As against the same, no document has been brought on record by the petitioner to hold prima facie that the authentication report or the decision of the Evaluation Committee in allotting the work in question to the respondent No. 6, is not valid and legal. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground made out to interfere with the decision of the said Evaluation Committee. 13. There is no merit in this writ petition. 14. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.