Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 962 (JK)

Tapan Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. State of J&K

2017-10-26

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. OWP No. 889/2017 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of impugned Evaluation Report of e-tender for supply, installation and commissioning of Solar Home Systems Model-II and Model-IV dated 16.06.2017 so far as it relates to the rejection of the Technical bid of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to accept the technical bid of the petitioner and also allot him contract of supply, installation and commissioning of Solar Home Systems Model-II and Model-IV. The petitioner also seeks quashment of impugned Evaluation Report of e-tender dated 16.06.2017 so far as it pertains to the acceptance of technical bid of respondent No. 4 as well as a direction for quashment of condition No. 3 i.e. Financial Criteria of the tender notification on the ground that the same is in violation of Central Vigilance Commission guidelines. In order to appreciate the petitioners grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing of Solar Photovoltaic Module, Solar Street Lights, Solar Charge Controller, Solar Lantern and Solar LED Bulb. Respondent No. 2 issued NIT by which, e-tender were invited from the manufacturers of SPV Cells/Module or Battery or PV Systems Electronics for supply, installation and commissioning and five years free of cost warranty under CMC of Solar Home Systems Model-II and Model-TV as per MNRE Government of India approved specifications. The quantity required to be supplied is 30,000/- numbers of Model-IV and 54000 numbers of Model-II, which is expected to increase by additional one lac quantity for a period of one year. The last date for submission of the tender documents both for technical bid as well as financial bid was 22.05.2017, which was later on extended from time to time and ultimately last date was fixed on 13.06.2017 up to 5.00 p.m. In the tender notification, eligibility conditions pertaining to the technical criteria, work experience and financial criteria were specified. The copies of the documents were required to be submitted with the bids. The terms and conditions of the NIT further provides that the experience of any collaborator/sister concern of the tenderer submitted as experience proof of the tenderer will not be accepted. 2. The petitioner submitted its bid in response to the aforesaid tender notification. The copies of the documents were required to be submitted with the bids. The terms and conditions of the NIT further provides that the experience of any collaborator/sister concern of the tenderer submitted as experience proof of the tenderer will not be accepted. 2. The petitioner submitted its bid in response to the aforesaid tender notification. However, the petitioner received a text massage from the respondents that its technical bid has been rejected. The petitioner later on learnt that its technical bid has been rejected on the ground of lack of work experience. It is pertinent to note that seven bidders have responded in pursuance of the aforesaid NIT and out of the seven bidders, six technical bids of the bidders were rejected and only technical bid of respondent No. 4 was accepted. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the ground that the work experience prescribed in the NIT shows that the bidder should have supplied the minimum quantity of 10,000 Nos. of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights from 01.04.2011 onwards to Government Organizations/Govt. Agencies/SNAs/PSUs of State Government or Central Government or under MNRE sponsored Programmes, whereas the petitioner had supplied 9000 numbers to the TERI (The Energy and Research Institute) and 1896 numbers of CFL/LED as joint venture. It is case of the petitioner that various mandatory conditions with regard to the eligibility in respect of respondent No. 4 were waived as his technical bid has wrongly been accepted. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the work experience required in the NIT, the bid of only such bidders would be entertained, who have supplied the minimum quantity of 10,000 numbers of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights from 01.04.2011 onwards to Government Organizations/Govt. Agencies/SNAs/PSUs of State Government or Central Government or under MNRE sponsored Programmes. While inviting attention of this Court to the Annexure 'E', it is submitted that the Energy and Research Institute has issued certificate that 9000 Solar Home Lighting Systems were procured for CSR activities of Coal India Ltd. In other words, the petitioner has made supply to the Coal India Ltd. and Solar Home Lighting Systems were procured to The Energy and Research Institute. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a manufacture of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a manufacture of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights. The petitioner has supplied 1896 number of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights to the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. In the notice issued by the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. there was requirement of furnishing local associates of the firm in Assam. Therefore, the details of the associates firm were supplied. In fact the petitioner is a manufacturer of CFL/LED as Solar Home Lighting Systems were supplied to the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have requisite work experience. 4. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the technical bid of respondent No. 4 has wrongly been accepted as all the mandatory qualifications have been waived while accepting his technical bid. It is submitted that as per the technical specifications of Solar Home Scheme, the prescribed battery was lead acid tubular flooded in respect of Model-II and Model-IV. However, respondent No. 4 along with his technical bid has annexed particulars of SMI Batteries. It is submitted that all the documents are required to be annexed with the tender conditions. However, in case of respondent No. 4, he has been permitted to furnish the documents later on. It is also submitted that the financial bid of the respondent No. 4 also not mentioned financial criteria in the NIT as financial turnover for three years from 2014-2015 till 2016-2017 is required to be furnished as per the NIT. However, respondent No. 4 along with his technical bid has furnished financial criteria from the period 2013-2014 and for a further period of two years. It is submitted that the technical specifications as per the MNRE guidelines have not been furnished by respondent No. 4. It is also submitted that test furnished by the respondent No. 4 is also not as per the MNRE guidelines and pertains to the year 2013-2014. It is also submitted that details of work experience as required in performa-2 has not been supplied. It is also urged that in case this Court does not intervene in the matter, there would be no competition, as respondent No. 4 is a sole tenderer. It is also submitted that details of work experience as required in performa-2 has not been supplied. It is also urged that in case this Court does not intervene in the matter, there would be no competition, as respondent No. 4 is a sole tenderer. In Support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium, (2016) 8 SCC 622 and Bakshi Security & Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 446 . 5. On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for respondents has produced the record and submitted that the petitioner has not supplied 10000 Nos. of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights from 01.04.2011 onwards to Government Organizations/Government Agencies/SNA/PSUs of State Government or Central Government or under MNRE sponsored programmes and has not annexed any certificate with regard to the supply of 10,000 units, therefore, the petitioner's technical bid was rightly rejected. It was further submitted that in work experience, the petitioner himself has stated that he has supplied 9000 units to TERI and not to the 'Coal India limited. It is further submitted that 1896 units were supplied to the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. However, certificate of completion has been issued in favour of Poorvenchal Enterprises, Guwahati. However, it is evident that supply of the aforesaid units have been made as joint venture Company with Poorvenchal Enterprises Guwahati, therefore, experience of any collaborator/sister concern cannot be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that NIT clearly specifies that the completion certificate is to be issued in the name of tenderer and, therefore, the technical bid of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. It is further submitted that since the petitioner failed to fulfill the criteria with regard to the technical qualification, therefore, he has no locus to question the eligibility of respondent No. 4. In support of his submissions, learned Dy. AG has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., 1999 (1) SCC 492 . It is further submitted that terms of the tender are not open to judicial review. In support of his submissions, learned Dy. AG has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., 1999 (1) SCC 492 . It is further submitted that terms of the tender are not open to judicial review. In support of the aforesaid submission reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216 . It is pointed out that the tender in question has been put to retendering for three times and the project in question is financed by the Government of India, which is to be completed on 28.02.2018, failing which penalty @ 2 per cent shall be imposed on the respondents. In reply to paragraph 6 to 8, respondents 1 to 3 has pointed out that respondent No. 4 has made the requirement as laid down in the Notice Inviting Tender. Lastly, it is submitted that even though the respondents 1 to 3 filed the caveat, however, Registry did not take note of the same and respondents 1 to 3 were not heard before passing of interim order, therefore, illegality while passing interim order is to be remedied by hearing respondents; 1 to 3. In support of the aforesaid submissions learned counsel referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 443. It is also submitted that the petitioner ought to have challenged the guidelines framed by the CVC or tender conditions before participation in the tender. In support of the aforesaid submissions reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7236 of 2003. It is pointed out that even if the single tender has qualified, in terms of the Govt. Order No. 230-F of 2016, dated 07.11.2016, same cannot be provided procedure prescribed that the aforesaid order is violated. It is also submitted that Expert Committee has evaluated the tender and, therefore, no interference is called for. In this connection, learned Dy. AG has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Wani & Company v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (4) JKJ 38 [HC]. It is also submitted that Expert Committee has evaluated the tender and, therefore, no interference is called for. In this connection, learned Dy. AG has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Wani & Company v. Union of India and Ors., 2013 (4) JKJ 38 [HC]. The learned Dy. AG has also invited attention of this Court to Clause 28 of the NIT. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that on 22.06.2017, letter of intent was issued in favour of the respondent No. 4, which was approved on 01.07.2017 and the same is not under challenge. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 has complied with the requirements and his bid has been evaluated by the Technical Committee and the documents have been submitted as per the guidelines in vogue. It is submitted that neither letter of intent is under challenge not the Technical Evaluating Committee, which has evaluated the bid has been impleaded as party. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of H.R. Builders and General Suppliers v. State of J & K and Ors., dated 22.09.2017 passed in OWP No. 794/2017, Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR, 2016 SC 3585 and decision of this Court in the case of 2016 (4) JKJ 281 [HC] TBA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of J & K and Ors. in OWP No. 1531/2015, dated 18.10.2016. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that discretion to grant largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, license and so on must be structured by rational, relevant and non-discretionary standard or norms. If the Government departs from such standard or norms, its action would be liable to be struck down unless the Government can establish that departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principles which in itself was not irrational, irrelevant, unreasonable or discriminatory. See, Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC 440. If the Government departs from such standard or norms, its action would be liable to be struck down unless the Government can establish that departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principles which in itself was not irrational, irrelevant, unreasonable or discriminatory. See, Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC 440. It is equally well settled legal proposition that it is open to the State to prescribe conditions in the tender, prescribing the eligibility criteria and if the State can justify the tender conditions in the context of particular contract, the courts will not interfere and whenever there are different alternatives, it is not for the courts to suggest that a particular alternative is justified. In awarding contract, the public interest is of paramount consideration and there should be no arbitrariness in awarding the contract and all participants in the tender process must be treated alike. In the celebrated case of Tata Cellular (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial power of review held that it would apply to exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. It has been held that the ground upon which the administrative action is subject to control by judicial review is on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. It has further been held that terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to tender is in the realm of contract and more often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. It has further been held that the Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 8. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 8. The principles regarding award of contract were again reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Education (supra) and it was held that Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of tender and the courts cannot strike down the terms of tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fairer, wiser or more logical. The courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. In the case of Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, (2010) 6 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court while taking note of the law laid down in Assn. of Registration Plates (supra), reiterated that State Government has the right to get the right and most competent person and in the matter of formulating conditions of tender documents, unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and is a misuse of statutory powers, the tender conditions are unassailable. In the case of Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Seimens Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 288 , it was held that tenders floated by the Government are amenable to judicial review only in order to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism and protect the financial interest of the State and the public interest. Thus, the scope of judicial review is confined as to whether there was any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety committed by the decision making authority. It has further been held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision made by the competent authority and the court can only examine whether the decision making process was fair, reasonable, transparent and bona fide with no perceptible injury to public interest. From the various decisions cited on both sides, following legal principles are deducible:- (i) The procedure adopted by 'State' under Article 12 while awarding contract can be adjudged and tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. From the various decisions cited on both sides, following legal principles are deducible:- (i) The procedure adopted by 'State' under Article 12 while awarding contract can be adjudged and tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the expense of the State as the same would be unreasonable and contrary to public interest. (iii) While exercising power of judicial review the court will not examine the details of contract but only are concerned with decision making process and whether the same was reasonable, rational and arbitrary or is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iv) The State while inviting tenders cannot take into account the factors which are irrelevant and detrimental to public interest. (v) An administrative action is subject to control by judicial review on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. (vi) The power of judicial review is available in cases where it is established that terms of invitation to tender are tailor-made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process, unless the tender conditions are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice, the terms of tender notice are not subject to judicial review. (vii) Level Playing Field is an important concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which confers fundamental right to carry on business. However, the aforesaid doctrine is subject to public interest. (viii) The power of judicial review is also available in a case where the action of the respondent is not only arbitrary, unreasonable and curtails public participation which vitally affects public interest and if permitted would result in causing loss to public exchequer for want of adequate competition. The Court would intervene if tender conditions give rise to formation of cartel which is against public policy. (ix) The Government while entering into contract or issuing quotas is expected not to like a private individual but should act in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The Court would intervene if tender conditions give rise to formation of cartel which is against public policy. (ix) The Government while entering into contract or issuing quotas is expected not to like a private individual but should act in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. (x) The terms of invitation to tender are not subject to judicial scrutiny and more often than not such decisions are made by experts and it is not open for the courts, whenever there are different alternatives, to suggest that particular alternative is more justified. Greater latitude is to be conceded to State authorities in the matter of formulating conditions of tender and awarding contracts. (xi) The Government has freedom of contract and court cannot strike down terms of tender merely because it feels that some other conditions in the tender would have been fairer, wiser or more logical. The courts can interfere only when conditions of tender are arbitrary, discriminatory and actuated by malice. (xii) The award of contract, whether it is by a private party or a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. The State can chose its own method to arrive at its decision and can fix its own terms of invitation of tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. Even when some defect is found in 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 of making out a legal point. (xiii) No person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. All that he can claim is that, in competing for the contract, he should not be unfairly treated and discriminated to the detriment of public interest. (xiv) The Government is the guardian of State finances and is expected to protect it. The right to choose cannot be considered as arbitrary as long as it complies with requirement of principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (xv) The test to be adopted is whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires court's intervention. See, R. v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt. Ex. P. Brind (1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL). 9. (xv) The test to be adopted is whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires court's intervention. See, R. v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt. Ex. P. Brind (1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL). 9. Before proceeding ahead, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extracts of the tender notice, which are reproduced as under: "PV module converts sunlight into electricity which powers the luminaire(s) which consists of W-Leds and an Electronic Circuit. All the lamps are to operate on an average for 4-5 hours per day, assuming an average daily solar insolation of 4.63 kWh/Sq. mtr. On a horizontal surface technical specification shall be as per latest MNRE guidelines. Model-II (Two white LEDs) PV Module 12 Wp under STC measured at 16.4 V as V load Module Voc minimum of 21 V. Battery lead acid tubular flooded, 12 V-12AH @ C/20, Max DoD-75%. Model IV (Four white LEDs) PV Module 24 Wp under STC measured at 16.4 V as V load Module Voc Minimum of 21 V Battery Lead acid tubular flooded 12 V-20AH @ C/20, Max DoD-75%. It should have a socket to provide power for 12 VDC TV Set. BATTERY (i) Lead acid tubular flooded. (ii) The Battery will have a minimum rating of 12 V, 12 AH (Model-II) and 12 V, 20 AH (Model-IV) at C/20 discharge rate. (iii) 75% of the rated capacity of the battery should be between fully charged and load cut off conditions. (iv) The battery shall conform to the latest BIS/International standards. (v) Each battery supplied shall have a replacement warranty card of five years. The batteries with 2-4 yrs. Replacement warranty would not be allowed. ........... ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS: Technical Criteria: Bidders should be the original manufacturers of SPV cells/modules of battery or PV system electronics supported with documentary evidence i.e. the bidder must be in possession of valid test report as per MNRE specifications for LED based SHSs (Model-II or Model-TV) from accredited test centres of MNRE with ISO 9001 certification. Validity of test report is thirty six (36) months from the date of issue. Work Experience. The bids of only such bidders would be entertained who have supplied a minimum quantity of 10,000 Nos. Validity of test report is thirty six (36) months from the date of issue. Work Experience. The bids of only such bidders would be entertained who have supplied a minimum quantity of 10,000 Nos. of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights from 01.04.2011 onwards to Government Organizations/Government Agencies/SNA/PSUs of State Government or central Government or under MNRE sponsored programmes: The details of the same shall be given separately as per the following (proforma-2). S.No. Name of Agency/Organization/PSUs Institution to whom material has been supplied Purchase order No. date and ordered quantity Quantity allotted Quantity supplied Date of supply Copies of supply order/completion certificates shall be appended as supporting documents. The proof of experience to be submitted along with the Bid as mentioned above should in the name of the tenderer only. Experience of any collaborator/sister concern of the tenderer submitted as experience proof of the tenderer will not be accepted. Financial Criteria: Aggregate financial turnover of the company during last three years should not be less than Rs. 15.00 crores and the details of the same shall be given on a separate page authenticated by the Charted Accountant as per the following format. Yeae Aggregate turnover 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Note: The suppliers shall submit audited balance sheet statement in respect of the turnover as indicated above and also submit details in Proforma-3. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE BIDDERS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF BIDS. 1. The Bidders are advised to submit their bids strictly based on the specifications, terms and conditions contained in the bid documents and subsequent revision/amendments, if any. 2. The bid shall be prepared and submitted by typing or printing in English with indelible black ink on white paper in consecutively numbered pages duly signed by the authorized signatory with company seal affixed on each page. Any part of the bid which is not specifically signed by the authorized signatory and not affixed with company seal, shall not be considered for the purpose of evaluation. 3. Original copy of bid document, amendments/revision to bid document issued by JAKEDA, if any, shall be signed and submitted along with the bid. 4. All the information (Proforma-4) must be on the bidder's official letterhead. 5. The offer shall contain no erasures or overwriting except as necessary to correct errors made by the bidder. Such corrections, if any, shall be initialed by the person signing the offer. 6. 4. All the information (Proforma-4) must be on the bidder's official letterhead. 5. The offer shall contain no erasures or overwriting except as necessary to correct errors made by the bidder. Such corrections, if any, shall be initialed by the person signing the offer. 6. The tenderer should not have been blacklisted or debarred by any International Agency or National Agency which includes Central Government/State Government/CPU/PSU or any public agency from carrying out similar business during last three financial years. 7. Documents in support of eligibility must be enclosed with the tender. Offers without satisfying eligibility conditions will be out rightly rejected and no correspondence in this regard will be entertained. 8. The offer/bid should be submitted in one part as under: The Bid should be super scribed Techno-commercial bid for NIT No. ST/EDA/SHI LED/27/2016-11/1499 Due on 22.05.2017 and shall contain:- (a) Authenticated copies of test certificates from authorized test centres of MNRE, Gol as per the MNRE, Gol guidelines. (b) Relevant certificate of IEC/BIS as applicable. (c) Makes of various parts/components to be used. (d) Supply orders and proof of completion against indicated supply order from the beneficiary organization for requisite systems. (e) Proof of registration of Industries Deptt. Of J & K State if applicable. (f) Earnest money. (g) Financial turnover of the company certified by CA. (h) Confirmation that the prices quoted are inclusive of all central/State/local taxes duties etc. as applicable and also fright, insurance, storage, carriage etc. For sites and free Replacement Warranty for 5 years and are quoted in Indian currency alone. (i) Certificate of utilizing IEC standard material in the PV modules in case of 24/12 Watt module is not IEC tested as per clause IV (ii). JAKEDA shall examine whether the bid is complete in all respects and conforms to the stipulated requirement of the technical specifications and test reports. The bid having material deviation shall be rejected as being non-responsive. 10. The Supreme Court in G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 488 , has held that the tender conditions, which provide for minimum qualifying requirement for intending tenderers and information and documents to be furnished by them prescribed by NIT, should be strictly observed by the instrumentality of the State consistently and bona fide interpreting the standards in particular manner, the Court would not interfere and substitute an interpretation, which is considers to be corrects. Also see Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 273 and Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal v. Union of India and others, (2002) 6 SCC 315 . 11. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that if essential conditions of tender has not been complied with, it is open for the person inviting tender to reject the same. Strict adherence to the essential condition with regard to the eligibility cannot be deviated. In the instant case, work experience is to be treated as essential mandatory condition which provides that tenderer should have supplied 10,000 Nos. of CFL/LED based Solar Home Lights from 01.04.2011 onwards to Government Organi-zations/Govt. Agencies/SNAs/PSUs of State Government or Central Government or under MNRE sponsored Programmes. In the instant case, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has not annexed any document to show that he has supplied the aforesaid quantity to the Agencies as required in the NIT. In the column of work experience, the petitioner himself has stated that he has supplied 9000 CFL/LED to TERI (The Energy and Research Institute) and not to the Coal India Limited, therefore, it is not permissible for the petitioner now to contend that he had supplied CFL/LED to Coal India Limited. It is also relevant to mention here that eligibility conditions relating to the work experience provides that completion certification should be issued in the name of tenderer only and experience of any collaborator/sister concern shall not be accepted. In the instant case, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that certificate of completion has been issued in favour of Poorvanchal Enterprises, Guwahati. Even assuming that the aforesaid enterprises was not joint venture company, then also the fact remains that certificate of completion is not in the name of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has failed to fulfill the criteria pertaining to the work experience. Therefore, his technical bid has rightly been rejected by the Committee of expert. The technical bid has been evaluated by the committee of experts and therefore, in view of the legal position, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Committee of expert with regard to the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. Therefore, his technical bid has rightly been rejected by the Committee of expert. The technical bid has been evaluated by the committee of experts and therefore, in view of the legal position, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Committee of expert with regard to the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. Therefore, the decision of rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that tenders were invited from the manufacturers of SPV Cells/Module or Battery or PV System Electronics for supply, installation and commissioning and five years free of cost warranty under CMC of Solar Home Systems Model-II and Model-IV as per MNRE Govt. approved specifications, which is financed by the Central Government and the work has to be completed by 28.02.2018, failing which funds shall stand lapsed. The aforesaid fact is evident from the record, which has been produced before this Court. Thus, the project is of public importance and is intended to provide facility of heating, drying and power/electricity generation to the public in general. It is also borne out from the record that this is third attempt of the respondents 1 to 3 in retendering the work in question, therefore, timely execution of the work is in public interest and intervention by this Court would defeat the public interest. So far as contention raised by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and therefore, essential eligibility condition in respect of respondent No. 4 overlooked/relaxed is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Rounaq International Ltd. (supra) has held that no relief at the instance of party, which does not fulfill the qualifying criteria can be granted. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is not necessary to examine the issue whether or not respondent No. 4 fulfill the criteria. Even otherwise the decision with regard to the eligibility of respondent No. 4 has been taken by the Committee of experts and no allegation of mala fide has been alleged against anyone in the writ petition. In fact situation of the case, even otherwise also it is not necessary for this court to dilate further with regard to the eligibility of respondent No. 4. In fact situation of the case, even otherwise also it is not necessary for this court to dilate further with regard to the eligibility of respondent No. 4. Even otherwise there no overwhelming public interest in stalling the project. On the other hand in case this Court intervene, the public interest would be defeated. 13. Besides that, letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 22.06.2017 which was accepted by respondent No. 4 on 01.07.2017, which is not under challenged in this writ petition. For this reason also, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction which otherwise is discretionary in nature. In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. Contempt (OWP) No. 493/2017 In view of the fact that writ petition bearing OWP No. 889/2017 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by an order passed by this Court today, I am not inclined to proceed further in the contempt petition, accordingly, the same is disposed of.