JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Kalita learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. P.K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Assam Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (‘ATDCL’) respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned State counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. The Managing Director, ATDCL issued notice inviting bid (QCBS) (E-procurement) notice dated 29.1.2020 from reputed manufacturer/authorized supplier for design, construction, supply, testing and commissioning of cruise, Ferry vessels, Floating Steel Barge barge/Pontoon and FRP speedboats at Majuli, Assam. The approximate value of the tender was Rs. 16,50,00,000. The last date of submission of e/bid was scheduled on 10.2.2020 upto 2 p.m. The date was extended by the respondents for submission of bid to 17.2.2020 up to 2 p.m. 3. The relevant portion of bid evaluation criteria in the notice inviting bid dated 29.1.2020 is extracted herein below : “BID EVALUATION CRITERIA Based on the NIB, Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will follow the following procedure for opening of the BID: STEP-I After receiving the BID, on the same day Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will open the Envelope and check the receipt of the two separate envelopes inside the same duly mentioned with envelop-II as mentioned in the Bid document. The Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will open first the Cover I to check the EMD/Bid Security and cost of bid document in the absence or default of which the bid may get rejected. STEP-II The Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will open the cover-II based on the cover-I as opened earlier on the same day, managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will check the documents submitting with cover II, technical bid and credential, overall and keep for scrutiny and evaluation by Managing Director, ATDC Ltd./Evaluation Committee. After technical evaluation on above, Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will, decide the date of opening of financial Bid based on the evaluation Report. After opening of the financial Bid, Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will evaluate the same to take the final decision on the same. The evaluation matrix attached with the Bid as guideline to the Bidders as follows: EVALUATION MATRIX Sl. No. Particulars Max. Marks Score Remarks 1. After opening of the financial Bid, Managing Director, ATDC Ltd. will evaluate the same to take the final decision on the same. The evaluation matrix attached with the Bid as guideline to the Bidders as follows: EVALUATION MATRIX Sl. No. Particulars Max. Marks Score Remarks 1. Experience on similar work(s) during last 7 years with details supported by copy of work order and completion certificate 15 2. (a) Annual financial turnover during the last years. 2018-2019 - Rs ……………… 2017-2018 - Rs ……………… 2016-2017 - Rs ……………… 15 (b) Evidence of access to line (s) of credit and availability of other financial resources facilities (10% of contract value), certified by bankers (c) Bank solvency certificate not more than 3 months old. 3. Key personnel available and proposed to be engaged for management and supervision of the project, their qualifications and experience with photocopy of certificate and consent letter of key personnel 10 4. Major equipment proposed to carry out the contract 5 5. Proposed methodology of execution and work programmers per scope of work) 5 6. Undertaking/declaration of Safety rule- regulations and safety appliances 5 7. Proof of availability of maintenance facility Bidder should have local ship building infrastructure with valid documents for last 3 years. 5 8. The bidder should have successfully been running inland offshore vessel based cruising/marine business for last 3 years 10 9. Presentation 30 Total marks 100 Note— Bidder must submit authenticated information with supporting documents as above. QCBS evaluation criteria. The assessment will be done on above basis. Evaluation criteria of QCBS Presentation— To become eligible for power Point Presentation Bidder must secure 40 marks out of 70 marks. (1) Technical marks:- The bidder must secure 60 marks in aggregate (combine in technical and power point presentation marks) for opening of financial bid. (2) Financial Marks : Based on lowest quote as 100%, the financial score in percentage will be worked out. Final Evaluation for selection: (QCBS Evaluation): The final Evaluation for selection will be based on combine evaluation of Technical + Financial Score. Weightage and Financial Score will be 70 : 30. Mode of Evaluation: The evaluation will be QCBS (Quality-cost Based Selection) Evaluation. Final Score: F:=0.7 ×Ts = 0.3 × Fs Ts=Technical Score Fs=Financial Score.” 4. The technical bid was opened on 21.2.2020 (sic 21.5.2020). Weightage and Financial Score will be 70 : 30. Mode of Evaluation: The evaluation will be QCBS (Quality-cost Based Selection) Evaluation. Final Score: F:=0.7 ×Ts = 0.3 × Fs Ts=Technical Score Fs=Financial Score.” 4. The technical bid was opened on 21.2.2020 (sic 21.5.2020). Three bidders were found to be technically eligible out of four bidders and the standings of the three eligible bidders are extracted below : Sl. No. Name of the bidder Technical Mark out of 100 Technical mark out of 70 Position 1. M/s. FMC-Relemech-AAAD 82.5 57.75 I 2. M/s. Manavta Trade link (P.) Ltd. 64.5 45.15 III 3. M/s. Merolyn Engineering (P.) Ltd 65.5 45.85 II 5. The financial bid was opened on 22.5.2020. It would reveal that the financial bid quoted by the petitioner, M/s. Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. was lowest. The final standing of the parties after opening of financial bid is extracted herein below: (A) Mark obtained as per Technical Evaluation Name of bidder Mark out of 100 Mark out of 70 1. M/s. FMC Relemech-AAAD… Respondent No. 5 82.50 57.75 2. M/s. Manavta Trade Link (P.) Ltd 64.50 45.15 3. M/s. Merolyn Eng. Works (P.) Ltd,. 65.50 45.85 (B) Mark obtained as per Financial Evaluation Name of bidder Declared amount Mark out of 30 1. M/s FMC Relemech – AAAD Rs.16,10,00,000.00 28.65 2. M/s Manavta Trade Link Pvt Ltd Rs.18,14,00,000.00 25.44 3. M/s Merolyn Eng. Works Pvt. Ltd. Rs.15,38,00,000.00 30.00 (C) Total Mark obtained after Technical & Financial Bid Evaluation (Technical 70+ Financial 30= Total 100 Marks) Name of bidder Technical Mark Financial Mark Total Position 1. M/s FMC Relemech - AAAD 57.75 28.65 86.40 I 2. M/s Manavta Trade Link Pvt Ltd 45.15 24.44 70.59 III 3. M/s Merolyn Eng. Works Pvt. Ltd. 45.85 30.00 75.85 II 6. The petitioner, M/s. Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. being dissatisfied in the ranking thereby showing the respondent No. 5 at serial No. 1 in the final evaluation of technical and financial bids combined, submitted representation dated 23.5.2020 to the respondent No. 2, the Director of Tourism. M/s Merolyn Eng. Works Pvt. Ltd. 45.85 30.00 75.85 II 6. The petitioner, M/s. Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. being dissatisfied in the ranking thereby showing the respondent No. 5 at serial No. 1 in the final evaluation of technical and financial bids combined, submitted representation dated 23.5.2020 to the respondent No. 2, the Director of Tourism. As there was no response the petitioner filed this writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the assessment of technical bid dated 21.2.2020 (sic 21.5.2020) along with marks allotted therein and the final statement combining technical and financial bids thereby declaring the petitioner as No. 2 bidder and for setting aside and quashing the entire process arising out of notice inviting bid dated 29.1.2020 and also to declare the petitioner as the successful bidder. 7. Mr. Choudhury learned senior counsel submits that as per serial No. 1 of the “evaluation matrix” experience on similar nature of work during last seven years carried 15 marks. The respondent No. 5, FMC-Relemech- AAAD is a consortium. The lead partner Relemech INC did not execute any similar nature of work during the last seven years. On the other hand, the petitioner in the joint venture of Merolyn-Ananda Shipyard executed and submitted credentials of similar nature of works performed during last seven years. The annual financial turnover during the last three years, i.e., 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 carried 4 marks each financial year out of total 15 marks. The turnover mentioned by Relemech INC as the lead partner of respondent No. 5 consortium is the combination of turnover of all its constituent entities. However, the turnover relevant for evaluation of the tender ought to have been considered of the turnover only in respect of the lead partner and not the combination of all the three entities. The lead partner of the respondent No. 5 consortium did not furnish GST registration certificate in their technical bid document. It was the GST certificate issued for Relemech Entertainment which was not valid for the lead partner, Relemech INC. 8. Clause 4.2(vi) under the heading “Qualification for bidder” in the tender document required submission of balance-sheet, profit and loss account and audit reports for the last three years. The lead partner of respondent No. 5 in the technical bid submitted the same for last one year and not for last three years. 8. Clause 4.2(vi) under the heading “Qualification for bidder” in the tender document required submission of balance-sheet, profit and loss account and audit reports for the last three years. The lead partner of respondent No. 5 in the technical bid submitted the same for last one year and not for last three years. From the comparison of the technical bid of the petitioner and respondent No. 5, it would reveal that the petitioner possessed more machinery, equipment and qualified workers compared to the respondent No. 5. However, technical bid evaluation committee intentionally gave less marks to the petitioner in the said head of technical evaluation. The petitioner, being the lead partner in the Merolyn Ananda Joint Venture is technically and financially stronger than the respondent No. 5 but even then the technical bid evaluation committee failed to consider such relevant aspect of the matter while granting marks in the technical bid evaluation. 9. The respondent Nos 2 and 3 did not reveal the component-wise break up of marks nor in their affidavit in opposition as to what marks the bid evaluation committee awarded against each component. Questioning the fairness and transparency in the decision making process it is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, that the act of non-mentioning even in the affidavit in opposition the marks component wise by the respondent-ATDCL apparently supported the said contention. It is the contention further that the petitioner had reasons to believe that the marks placed before this court is nothing but after thought and prepared after filing of the writ petition. 10. Mr. Choudhury learned senior counsel submits that for execution of contract, Relemech INC as the lead partner is required to make available its equipments and organization in the place of work and the foreign company, i.e., FMC Relemech-AAAD would only provide their experience in the field, expertise of managerial staff, capital and technical know-how, etc. But the Relemech INC being the lead partner of the respondent No. 5 without executing similar nature of work ought not to have been considered in the technical bid itself. But the Relemech INC being the lead partner of the respondent No. 5 without executing similar nature of work ought not to have been considered in the technical bid itself. On the other hand, the petitioner's joint venture, i.e., Merolyn Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Ltd., the Indian company M/s. Merolyn Engineering (P.) Ltd. executed and furnished details of completion of several similar nature of works in the last seven years along with the necessary particulars of equipments, organization, manpower and all the requisites for successful execution of the work at Majuli. But the bid evaluation committee granted similar marks, i.e., 15 to both the parties which is out and out arbitrary and discriminatory. Although the joint venture is considered as one unit but while awarding marks under various component in the evaluation matrix, the bid evaluation committee ought to have applied its mind to the various intricacies related to the execution of the contract work for which it ought to have considered the experience of the lead partner being the Indian company of the respondent No. 5. 11. The turnover mentioned by Relemech INC is combination of turn over for its all constituents and Relemech INC submitted profit and loss account, balance sheet for the year 2019-20 only. The details of previous years of Relemech INC are not given in the bid documents. The turnover of Relemech INC for the year 2019-20 was around Rs. 30 lakhs. The bid evaluation committee while awarding marks for serial No. 2(a) of the evaluation matrix took into consideration the turnover of the consortium, i.e.,’ FMC-Relemech-AAAD and did not look into the capacity of the Indian company at all. Thus, it had over looked the capacity of the Indian company to complete the contract work valued at more than 16 crores. The petitioner, M/s. Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. had a total turnover of Rs. 440 crores alone compared to Rs. 365 crores of the respondent No. 5, the consortium jointly. The financial resources facility of the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 3 crores as compared to Rs. 1.70 crores of the respondent No. 5. But the evaluation committee assessed both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 at par thereby assigning equal marks to both. 12. 365 crores of the respondent No. 5, the consortium jointly. The financial resources facility of the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 3 crores as compared to Rs. 1.70 crores of the respondent No. 5. But the evaluation committee assessed both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 at par thereby assigning equal marks to both. 12. The petitioner more specifically the joint venture, Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Ltd. are technically qualified having under its fold various technical persons and as referred in the affidavit in opposition of the ATDCL, there was no requirement to submit the consent letters from the said technical persons inasmuch as the joint venture directly employs engineer, naval architect and other personnels having specialization in the marine field being on the pay roll of it. The tender committee failed to consider those aspects and there was disparity in the assessment by giving lesser marks to the petitioner at serial No. 3 of the evaluation matrix. Regarding awarding of marks at serial No. 4 by the bid evaluation committee there were also disparity inasmuch as the petitioner was having major equipments much more than the lead partner of respondent No. 5. The said Relemech INC did not even mention as to whether the equipments submitted in the bid were owned or rented in contrast to the petitioner who owns all the major equipments. Accordingly the bid evaluation committee could not have given equal marks. The committee granted equal marks though the respondent No. 5 is lacking the requisite infrastructure and allotted lower marks to the petitioner in other components in order to do favour to the respondent No. 5. It is also submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the bid evaluation committee while assessing the capability under serial No. 7 pertaining to proof of availability of maintenance facility did not give any marks to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner in its communication dated 18.2.2020 gave undertaking that they had understanding with a local Ship Builder for infrastructure, maintenance facility in order to execute the contract as stipulated in the tender documents. The State of Assam is yet to have an indigenous shipyard. Under such circumstance ‘0’ marks granted to the petitioner at serial No. 7 is totally illogical. The State of Assam is yet to have an indigenous shipyard. Under such circumstance ‘0’ marks granted to the petitioner at serial No. 7 is totally illogical. Similarly non-granting of any marks at serial No. 8 is quite contrary to the supporting documents annexed to this writ petition showing the petitioner, i.e., Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. successfully running inland/off shore vessels based cruising/marine business. The remarks thereof in the said evaluation matrix is absolutely perverse. The petitioner was the lowest bidder and by not awarding the contract to it the State would loose revenue to the tune of Rs. 72 lakhs which is always a deciding factor in awarding of a contract. Mr. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel submits that the tender committee failed to evaluate applying the required yardstick in respect of joint venture. He relied on New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 . Accordingly Mr. Choudhury sought for interference of this court in the writ petition. 13. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed affidavit in opposition wherein it was specifically denied the allegation of non-consideration of each and every documents while carrying out evaluation of the bid. It is submitted that the technical evaluation is absolutely transparent, fair and reasonable. It is stated that the respondent-Corporation adopted uniform tender evaluation method, i.e., QCBS method and as per the practice the statement of the technical bid declaring the total marks scored by the bidders was published. Moreover nowhere in the tender documents it was mandatory on the part of the tender committee to publish component-wise break up or justification for the marks awarded against the parameters of the evaluation matrix. The petitioner was allotted highest marks in the financial evaluation as it quoted lowest bid among all the bidders. But the final evaluation for selection was based on the combined evaluation of technical and the financial score. The respondent No. 5 was selected for the contract as it secured higher marks than the petitioner in the combined evaluation of technical and financial score. 14. In the affidavit in opposition it is specifically stated that the petitioner in its individual capacity as lead partner of the joint venture Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. — Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. did not submit any documents pertaining to “experience on similar works” and “financial turnover” as per tender requirements. 14. In the affidavit in opposition it is specifically stated that the petitioner in its individual capacity as lead partner of the joint venture Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. — Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. did not submit any documents pertaining to “experience on similar works” and “financial turnover” as per tender requirements. But the joint venture Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd.,-Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. submitted the same in the name.ofjqint, venture through its partner Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd.j.-Similarly the respondent No. 5 also submitted documents pertaining to the “experience in similar works” and “financial turnover” as per tender, requirements in the name of joint venture through its partner FMC. The respondent No. 5 had submitted a valid GST registration certification which belonged to sole proprietor of both Relemech INC and Relemech Entertainment. .The respondent No. 5 submitted one certificate issued by Chartered Accountant supporting the fact that the Proprietor of Relemech INC, Ms. Ruli Ahmed is the sole Proprietor and 100% beneficial owner of Relemech Services, M/s. Relemech INC and M/s. Relemech Entertainment. Denying the allegations of the petitioner in the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the affidavit in opposition submitted that the respondent No. 5 as joint venture submitted balance sheet, profit and loss account and audit report for last three years fulfilling the requirements of clause 4.2(vi) of “qualification of the bidders”. In respect of parameter 3 of the evaluation matrix it is required that the bidders must provide details of “key personnel” available and proposed to be engaged for management and supervision of project, their qualification and experience along with consent letter of “key person”. The petitioner joint venture provided names of three “key persons” holding the position of consultant but without their consent letters. The other personnels proposed by the petitioner for the project were much less qualified compared to those of private respondent No. 4. The consent letters of the key personnels are mandatory which the petitioner failed to submit. The respondent No. 5 submitted the consent letters and certificates of the key personnels who were much more qualified. The petitioner was not technically fit for contract and as such it scored lesser marks in technical evaluation’ compared to the respondent No. 5. Moreover after both technical and financial evaluation, the final score of respondent No. 5 was higher than the petitioner. The petitioner was not technically fit for contract and as such it scored lesser marks in technical evaluation’ compared to the respondent No. 5. Moreover after both technical and financial evaluation, the final score of respondent No. 5 was higher than the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 quoted 2.42% below the tender value in the financial bid but the petitioner could not overcome the score of the respondent No. 5 in the technical and financial score combined. As such the statement that the action of the answering respondents was actuated by colourable exercise of power in order to do favour to respondent No. 5 was totally baseless. 15. Regarding the criteria “proof of availability of maintenance facility” it is submitted in the affidavit in opposition of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that it was mandatory that the bidder should have local ship building and infrastructure with valid document for last three years. The petitioner submitted documents pertaining to availability of maintenance facility at Howrah, West Bengal which cannot be considered as local. The petitioner did not submit any document to show that the petitioner was successfully running inland or offshore vessel based cruise or marine business for last three years. 16. Referring to the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the affidavit in opposition Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the ATDCL submitted that ATDCL adopted uniform tender evaluation methods, i. e., QCBS methods. Moreover there was no mention in the tender notice about publication of the component-wise break up of marking in the assessment of the technical bids and for that reason of non-publication only, contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there was no transparency in the evaluation process cannot be accepted. He also submitted that the primary advantage of QCBS method of evaluation was that mere submission of lowest financial bid does not entitle any bidder to get the contract. The bidder must also be technically sound to carry out the project in a successful manner. In the present case the joint venture Merolyn-Ananda Shipyard was technically not fit for the contract and as such it scored lesser marks in the technical evaluation compared to respondent No. 5. The bidder must also be technically sound to carry out the project in a successful manner. In the present case the joint venture Merolyn-Ananda Shipyard was technically not fit for the contract and as such it scored lesser marks in the technical evaluation compared to respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 as hereinabove observed quoted 2.42% below the tender value in the financial bid but only for that reason the financial bid quoted by the petitioner which was much lower than the one quoted by the respondent No. 5 cannot be considered leaving aside the score in the technical evaluation. As per clause 4.3 of tender documents, to qualify for awarding a contract each bidder in its name should have average annual financial turnover during the last three years at least 30% of the bid value which comes to more or less Rs. 5 crores. The joint venture bidders, respondent No. 5 and the petitioner qualified such criteria in the capacity of joint venture but not in any individual capacity of the lead partner. Accordingly both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 being situated similarly, each of them scored equal marks in serial No. 2 of evaluation matrix. As hereinabove stated in affidavit in opposition, proof of availability of maintenance facility is mandatory and bidder should have local shipbuilding infrastructure with valid documents of last three years but the petitioner failed as hereinabove stated in the affidavit in opposition. The evaluation committee awarded the marks after giving due consideration to each and every parameters of the evaluation matrix and while doing so valid reasons indicating the basis on which marks were granted against each parameters were recorded. Mr. Sharma produced the records for inspection by this court. 17. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 5 referring to the stand in the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, submitted that respondent No. 5 in its affidavit in opposition raised the preliminary objection as to the locus standi of the petitioner and its representative to file the instant writ petition challenging the selection of the respondent No. 5 as the successful bidder in the tender process. The petitioner participated as a joint venture of two companies, namely, M/s. Merolyn Engineering (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. As per the definition “bidder/contractor” as defined under clause 1(i)(b) of the General Conditions of the Contract of the bid documents means the company, firm, person or persons whose bid has been accepted by the Corporation and includes bidder's successors, etc., unless excluded by the contract. The said definition signified that if a joint venture submitted a bid then the bid is not submitted as an individual company, but as a joint venture entity. The bid was submitted by the said joint venture and not by the M/s. Merolyn Engineering (P.) Ltd. in its individual capacity. Therefore the right to challenge the selection process accrues only to the joint venture and not to M/s. Merolyn Engineering (P.) Ltd. in its individual capacity. Accordingly the petitioner being not the bidder in its individual capacity had no right to challenge the selection process in the instant writ petition. 18. Mr. Das admitted that the bid evaluation committee evaluated the bids according to the bid evaluation criteria and evaluation matrix as provided in the tender documents an the basis of the information and documents submitted by the respective bidders. The evaluation committee awarded respective marks after giving due consideration to each and every parameters of the evaluation matrix and the evaluation committee assigned valid reasons indicating the basis on which marks were granted against each component of the evaluation matrix. The evaluation process on Quality Cost Based Selection (QCBS) is not on the basis of financial bid only which plays a major role in a process based on technical qualification. In QCBS standard, marks are provided in the technical bid component-wise as well as financial bid and the respective total marks obtained by each bidders becomes the key of selection of the successful bidder. Even if under QCBS process of evaluation the financial bid is lowest, it may not make the bidder successful if the technical score is on the lower side. 19. The annual financial turnover for the respondent No. 5 for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 of Relemech Incorporation INC, Relemech Entertainment and Relemech Services were submitted. The annual financial turnover of FMC Dockyard Ltd. was also submitted. The qualifying criteria as per tender condition was that of the joint venture but not of an individual partner. 19. The annual financial turnover for the respondent No. 5 for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 of Relemech Incorporation INC, Relemech Entertainment and Relemech Services were submitted. The annual financial turnover of FMC Dockyard Ltd. was also submitted. The qualifying criteria as per tender condition was that of the joint venture but not of an individual partner. It was argued that one of the partners of respondent No. 5-FMC Dockyard submitted the annual required turnover which easily qualified the joint entity of respondent No. 5. Accordingly the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-submission of annual turnover by Relemech INC is irrelevant. Moreover the tender condition nowhere specified that the lead partner had to submit the annual turnover and the highest annual turnover of the lead partner would have any kind of relevance. 20. Respondent No. 5 submitted its bid as joint venture and not in an individual capacity of its respective partners. FMC dockyard as the joint venture partner submitted the required balance sheet and profit and loss account for last three years which itself qualified the respondent No. 5 in the bid and as such the balance sheet submitted by the Relemech INC was in addition to the one of FMC Dockyard. A chartered accountant certificate containing the financial details of Relemech INC, Relemech Services and Relemech Entertainment for last three years was submitted. It was totally irrelevant factor that the lead partner of M/s. Merolyn Ananda joint venture had more machinery equipments and qualified workers as compared to Relemech INC, the lead partner of respondent No. 5. M/s. Merolyn Ananda joint venture in fact did not furnish any document to show that they would be able to engage full time employees for the project. Instead they had given some details pertaining to the consultants only which was not as per the tender terms and conditions. 21. Referring to the concept and meaning of the term “joint venture” it was submitted that no law on the Statute Book of India defined a joint venture. Section 8 of the Partnership Act, 1932 stipulates that a person may become a partner with another person in particular adventure. Such partnership is restricted to a single project in which members of joint venture act jointly both at the stage of tendering and at the stage of award till completion of contract. Section 8 of the Partnership Act, 1932 stipulates that a person may become a partner with another person in particular adventure. Such partnership is restricted to a single project in which members of joint venture act jointly both at the stage of tendering and at the stage of award till completion of contract. Joint venture of two or more persons undertaking to combine their property or labour in conduct of a particular line of trade is recognized by various judicial decision. It was the joint venture which involved itself in financial contribution by the parties effort, knowledge, etc., and as such once a joint venture participated in a bid it was liable for the performance of a contract and the individual parties forming the joint venture lost its individual identity including its legal right to contract in the individual capacity. Accordingly the petitioner who was not a bidder had no locus standi to file writ petition. Mr. Das relied (1) New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 (2) Fakir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies (P.) Ltd., (2008) 10 SCC 345 . 22. The learned senior counsel for respondent No. 5 further argued that the executive action in a tender process is subject to inherent limitation though a judicial review is possible Judicial review of executive action could be done only when if it was shown in the public authority committed gross illegalities or exercised power in any arbitrary manner. In the present case in hand, the petitioner failed to discharge its burden at least to show that the respondent-ATDCL committed gross illegalities or exercised power in abusive arbitrary manner. Assessment of technical bid was on the basis of the material/documents submitted by the bidders in support of the various criteria stipulated in the evaluation matrix. There was no requirement of publishing the breakup of marks assessed and awarded to the individual bidder as per terms of the tender condition. The petitioner as hereinabove stated utterly failed to bring out any discriminatory/arbitrary decisions taken in the evaluation process more specifically while assessing and awarding the individual marks to the bidders and as such this petition is required to be dismissed. In support of the scope of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India in a tender matter Mr. In support of the scope of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India in a tender matter Mr. Das relied on : (i) Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 (para 22). (ii) Michigan Rubber (I) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 (paras 11 and 21) (iii) The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 335 (para 33) (iv) State of MP v. U.P. State Bridge, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1001 (para 22) 23. Heard learned counsel and perused the records. Against the notice inviting bid dated 29.1.2020 four bidders participated. At the stage of evaluation of eligibility, one of the parties was eliminated as it was found to be non-responsive due to non-submission of similar nature of work order/completion certificate. Thereafter in the evaluation of technical process there were three bidders in the competition, namely, the joint venture, Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) ltd and M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd., FMC-Relemech-AAAD, a joint consortium and M/s. Manavta Trade Link (P.) Ltd., a private limited company. This writ petition is filed by M/s. Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. as the lead partner in the joint venture Merolyn Engineering Works — M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. The technical bid was opened on 21.2.2020 (sic 21.5.2020) and the financial bid was opened on 22.5.2020. The final standing as per the total marks obtained by the said three parties after technical and financial bid evaluation stood as follows : (A) Mark obtained as per Technical Evaluation Name of bidder Mark out of 100 Mark out of 70 1. M/s. FMC Relemech-AAAD, Respondent No. 5 82.50 57.75 2. M/s. Manavta Trade Link (P.) Ltd 64.50 45.15 3. M/s. Merolyn Eng. Works (P.) Ltd. 65.50 45.85 (B) Mark obtained as per Financial Evaluation Name of bidder Declared amount Mark out of 30 1. M/s. FMC Relemech-AAAD Rs. 16,10,00,000 28.65 2. M/s. Manavta Trade Link (P.) Ltd. Rs. 18,14,00,000 25.44 3. M/s. Merolyn Eng. Works (P.) Ltd. Rs. 15,38,00,000 30.00 (C) Total Mark obtain after Technical & Financial Bid Evaluation (Technical 70+ Financial 30 = Total 100 Marks) Name of bidder Technical Mark Financial Mark Total Position 1. M/s. FMC Relemech-AAAD 57.75 28.65 86.40 I 2. M/s Manavta Trade Link (P.) Ltd. 45.15 24.44 70.59 III 3. M/s. Merolyn Eng.Works (P.) Ltd. 45.85 30.00 75.85 II 24. 15,38,00,000 30.00 (C) Total Mark obtain after Technical & Financial Bid Evaluation (Technical 70+ Financial 30 = Total 100 Marks) Name of bidder Technical Mark Financial Mark Total Position 1. M/s. FMC Relemech-AAAD 57.75 28.65 86.40 I 2. M/s Manavta Trade Link (P.) Ltd. 45.15 24.44 70.59 III 3. M/s. Merolyn Eng.Works (P.) Ltd. 45.85 30.00 75.85 II 24. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved due to the marks awarded and evaluation carried out in the technical bids. For the said reason the evaluation of eligibility and evaluation of technical proposal of the bidders by the bid evaluation committee consisting of technical experts is extracted hereinbelow: Evaluation of eligibility Note : 1. Bangladesh Taka converted into Indian Rupee 2. Bidder Cleghorn Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. failed to submit similar nature of work order/completion certificate 1 no. 80% of Bid value or 2 nos. 50% of bid value or 3 nos. 40 % of bid vale. Hence, bidder declared non-responsive. EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 25. Mr. Choudhury learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the assessment carried out by the bid evaluation committee was not as per the necessary weightage which ought to have been given to the lead partner of the joint venture and/or consortium. For instance, it was his contention that the turn over mentioned by Relemech INC, one of the constituents of the consortium, respondent No. 5 did not execute any similar nature of work during the last seven years. On the other hand, the petitioner in the joint venture of M/s. Merolyn-Ananda Shipyard executed and submitted credentials, of similar nature of work performed during the last seven years. The turn over relevant for evaluation of the tender which ought to have been considered was the turn over only in respect of the lead partner of the respondent No. 5 and not the combination of all the three entities. Similarly the lead partner of respondent No. 5 in technical bid submitted the balance sheet, profit and loss account and audit report for last one year but not for last three years. The Relemech INC as the lead partner of the respondent No. 5 was required to offer the availability of its equipment and organization in the place of work and the foreign company, i.e., FMC-AAAD would only provide their experience in the field of expertise of managerial staff, technical know-how, etc. The Relemech INC as the lead partner of the respondent No. 5 was required to offer the availability of its equipment and organization in the place of work and the foreign company, i.e., FMC-AAAD would only provide their experience in the field of expertise of managerial staff, technical know-how, etc. The petitioner as one of the constituents of the joint venture, Merolyn-Ananda Shipyard being the Indian company executed and furnished details of completion of several similar nature of works in the last seven years along with necessary particulars of equipment, etc., but the bid evaluation committee awarded similar marks, i.e., 15 to both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 which is discriminatory. The bid evaluation committee while awarding marks for serial No. 2(a) of the evaluation matrix took into consideration the total turnover of the consortium respondent No. 5 without looking into the capacity of the Indian company at all. On the other hand the petitioner alone had a total turnover of Rs. 440 crores compared to 365 crores of the respondent No. 5 consortium jointly. It was further submitted that while assessing capability under serial No. 7 of the evaluation matrix pertaining to proof of availability of maintenance facility the bid evaluation committee did not give any marks to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner in its communication dated 18.2.2020 gave undertaking that they had understanding with a local ship builder for infrastructure, maintenance facility, etc., which was discriminatory. 26. Before entering into the scope of judicial review, in my considered opinion it would be proper to discuss on the concept of joint venture/consortium to be understood in terms of definition “bidder/contractor” as defined under clause 1(i)(b) of the General Conditions of, the Contract in the bid documents. The petitioner is one of the constituents' in the joint venture along with M/s. Ananda/Shipyard and Slipways Ltd., a company having its registered office at Dhaka within Bangladesh and on the other hand respondent No. 5 is a consortium of M/s. Relemech INC a proprietorship firm having its, registered office at Guwahati, FMC Dockyard Ltd., a limited liability company incorporated under the Bangladesh Companies Act having its registered office at Chitagong and AAD Corporation, a registered proprietorial firm having its registered office at Guwahati. The petitioner in support of said status of joint venture submitted a registered deed of agreement and on the other hand respondent No. 5 also submitted a consortium agreement notarised by the competent notary at Guwahati. On the basis of said agreements put on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner is one of the constituents of the “joint venture” M/s. Merolyn Engineering (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. and on the other hand respondent No. 5 is — also a joint venture/consortium of M/s. Relemech INC-FMC Dockyard Ltd-AAD Corporation. 27. In New Horizons Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the legal status of the expression “joint venture” on the basis of the following factual matrix. The New Horizons Ltd. (NHL) participated in a tender issued in various Newspapers on 22.4.1993 by the department of Telecommunication, Telecom District, Hyderabad for competent agencies for printing, binding and for supply of specified number of telephone directories in English for three annual issues commencing from 1993. Therein amongst other participants, NHL participated as the joint venture company established by Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (TPI), Living Media (India) Ltd. (LMI), World Media Ltd. (WML) and Integrated Information (P.) Ltd. (IIPL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Telecom wherein 60% of shares were held by TPI, LMI, WML and other companies in the Same group, and 40%, of shares were held by IIPL. In the said bid the overview, of each of the parent companies, namely, TPI, LMI, WML and IIPL was also given in the tender offered. The bid of NHL was rejected whereafter the same. was challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and finally the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 15.10.1993 the writ petition was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition the High Court observed that a joint venture is a one-time grouping of two or more persons in a business undertaking and unlike a partnership, a joint venture does not entail a continuing relationship among the parties and or that view the High Court held that there was no joint venture as such and there was only a certain amount of equity participation by a foreign company in NHL. Holding against the view of the High Court the Apex Court held as follows : ‘“24. The expression “joint venture” is more frequently used in the United States. Holding against the view of the High Court the Apex Court held as follows : ‘“24. The expression “joint venture” is more frequently used in the United States. It connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein, all contribute assets and share risks. It requires a community of interest in the performance of the subject-matter, a right to direct and govern the policy in connection therewith, and duty, which may be altered by agreement, to share both in profit and losses (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edn. p.839). According to Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., a joint venture is an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit (p. 117, vol. 23).” 28. The Apex Court in Gammon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, (2011) 12 SCC 499 applying the principle of “lifting the corporate veil” as in New Horizons (supra) and the findings therein it was held that the joint venture companies’ technical experience could only be the experience of partnering companies and the technical experience of all constituents of NHL were liable to be cumulatively reckoned in the tender proceedings and any one of the constituents was competent to act on behalf of the joint venture company. Accordingly it was further held that the New Horizons (supra) recognized a joint venture to be a legal entity in the nature of partnership of constituent companies. In other words the partnership concept in relation to a joint venture was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 29. In Fakir Chand Gulati (supra) the Apex Court accepted the definition of joint venture as defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows : “24. Joint venture.— A business undertaking by two or more persons engaged in a single defined project. The necessary elements are : 1. An express or implied agreement, 2. a common purpose that the group intends to carry out, 3. shared profits and losses, and 4. each member's equal voice in controlling the project.” 30. Joint venture.— A business undertaking by two or more persons engaged in a single defined project. The necessary elements are : 1. An express or implied agreement, 2. a common purpose that the group intends to carry out, 3. shared profits and losses, and 4. each member's equal voice in controlling the project.” 30. From the aforesaid decisions it can be concluded that a joint venture is a legal entity in the nature of partnership firm engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit having community of interest in the performance of the subject-matter. A “joint venture” is formed by the constituent companies, firms, etc., and the experience of the various constituents, financial ‘resources and any other qualifying criteria specified in a tender satisfied by anyone of the constituents forming the joint venture are to be taken into consideration as emanating from a single bidder or contractor as defined under clause 1(i)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract of bid documents. Accordingly the submission of Mr. Choudhury learned senior counsel for the petitioner that weightage must be given only to the lead member of the joint venture/consortium and same is mandatory on the part of the lead member of the consortium/joint venture to satisfy each and every eligibility/technical criteria cannot be accepted. 31. As hereinabove stated the bid committee consisted of seven members including the representative of the Project Management Consultancy (Luit Valley Engg.). The members of the said committee are mostly technical persons. The technical evaluation of the technical proposal was carried out by the said committee. From the said evaluation it is found that marks were given to three participants in the technical bid along with comments in the respective columns of the evaluation criteria. The total mark against a specified “criteria” was sub-divided and against respective components marks were given. 32. Mr. Choudhury learned senior counsel questioned the act of awarding the marks to the various participants in this regard. It would be proper to examine the extent of the scope of judicial review of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court cannot sit as an appellate authority in order to decide the correctness of the assessment made by the bid evaluation committee formed by the technical members. It would be proper to examine the extent of the scope of judicial review of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court cannot sit as an appellate authority in order to decide the correctness of the assessment made by the bid evaluation committee formed by the technical members. In this respect though there are various decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court, in my considered opinion it would be proper to take note at first the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in, (1994) 6 SCC 651 wherein the Apex Court laid down the principle required to be adhered to while exercising the scope of judicial review. “94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modem trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) 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 (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 33. The said principle was considered subsequently by the hon'ble Supreme Court in various of its decisions. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 33. The said principle was considered subsequently by the hon'ble Supreme Court in various of its decisions. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying various decisions of the Apex Court including Tata Cellular (supra), Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M&N Publication Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445 , Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492 , Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 held as follows : “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary-grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; Or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”. (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” The Apex Court in Michigan Rubber. (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 relying the decision of Jagdish Mandal (supra) held as follows : “24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : the decision is such at no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached? and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected?. If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under article 226.” The hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2197 of 2020 Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. AMR Dev Prabha decided on March 18, 2020 downloaded from 2020 SCC OnLine SC 335 while explaining the scope of judicial review in tenders after considering some of the aforesaid decisions held as follows : “29. The scope of judicial review in tenders has been explored in-depth in a catena of cases. It is settled that constitutional courts are concerned only with lawfulness of a decision, and not its soundness. The scope of judicial review in tenders has been explored in-depth in a catena of cases. It is settled that constitutional courts are concerned only with lawfulness of a decision, and not its soundness. Phrased differently, Courts ought not to sit in appeal over decisions of executive authorities or instrumentalities. Plausible decisions need not be overturned, and latitude ought to be granted to the State in exercise of executive power so that the constitutional separation of powers is not encroached upon. However, allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety would be enough grounds for courts to assume jurisdiction and remedy such ills. This is especially true given out unique domestic circumstances, which have demonstrated the need for judicial intervention numerous times. Hence, it would only be the decision-making process which would be the subject of judicial enquiry, and not the end result (save as may be necessary to guide determination of the former)?” 34. From the aforesaid decisions it can be concluded that while exercise the jurisdiction of judicial review in a tender under article 226 of the Constitution of India it must be borne in mind that the concept of “fair play in the joints” is always conjoined in the functioning of the administrative body working in the administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. The said administrative body must have freedom of contract which is a commercial transaction. Principles of equity and natural justice normally have no influence. If the decision making process adopted by the said administrative body is for the benefit of the public interest and as such, a court before interfering in the tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review must in my considered opinion, see whether refusal by the tender evaluation committee to consider the tender of the petitioner was proper and reasonable. If the same is held to be unreasonable the decision making process is required to be interfered by this court. 35. On perusal of the evaluation it is found that the committee assessed the various documents submitted in support of fulfilling various criteria by the parties against their respective bids and upon assessment thereof awarded marks to the respective bidders. As hereinabove already stated that the bid evaluation committee was formed with members of technical backgrounds and the eligibility criteria as per evaluation matrix includes of technical criteria to be satisfied by the bidders. While awarding the marks, Mr. As hereinabove already stated that the bid evaluation committee was formed with members of technical backgrounds and the eligibility criteria as per evaluation matrix includes of technical criteria to be satisfied by the bidders. While awarding the marks, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were certain deficiencies. For instance the petitioner was awarded ‘0’ marks at serial No. 7 pertaining “to proof of availability of maintenance facility”. On perusal of the evaluation of technical proposal it is found that the respondent No. 5 submitted copy of trade licence along with affidavit thereby referring Panikhati within Guwahati to be the site for availability of maintenance facility. On the other hand/the petitioner submitted Howrah within West Bengal as the availability of maintenance facility and as such it waft remarked that no local shipyard was cited by the evaluation committee. The criteria stipulate that the said facility must be “local”. Thereafter upon such assessment, 5 marks was awarded to the respondent No. 5 and ‘0’ marks to the petitioner. This is taken into reference only in order to show as an instance that the bid evaluation committee while awarding marks also specified the reason for such award of mark at the time of assessment. Whether the said markings are proper that in my considered opinion cannot be entered into by this court within the scope of judicial review inasmuch as in Tata Cellular (supra) the Apex Court held that it was open to the court to review the decision maker's evaluation of the facts and the court would intervene where the facts taken as a whole cannot be taken into logical conclusion of the decision maker. But on the basis of the reasonings which forms the basis of awarding the marks, 1 am of the opinion that the conclusion drawn before awarding the marks cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory. 36. It is for the employer-respondent-ATDCL as to whether the said criteria of having local ship building infrastructure can be deviated or not. As the petitioner was awarded ‘0’ marks it can be inferred that the said condition of having local ship-building infrastructure is mandatory. In view of the same this court cannot enter and reassess the marks already awarded by the bid evaluation committee. On perusal of the said evaluation I do not find any fault with the decision making process. 37. As the petitioner was awarded ‘0’ marks it can be inferred that the said condition of having local ship-building infrastructure is mandatory. In view of the same this court cannot enter and reassess the marks already awarded by the bid evaluation committee. On perusal of the said evaluation I do not find any fault with the decision making process. 37. Again considering the assessment done by the bid evaluation committee it is found that it had marked against the ingredients/elements essential to the satisfaction of the criteria in the evaluation matrix. The said ingredients/elements were assessed by the bid evaluation committee consisting of technical persons and naturally from the point of view of this court the said ingredient/element forming the basis of each criteria must be taken as the requirements of the employer, ATDCL. This court having no such expertise must accept the same to be appropriate vis-a-vis the contractual job. Defidendes of the parties in the technical evaluation were pointed out by the said committee and marks were awarded accordingly. The said marks formed the basis of the decision making process. 38. The justification of marks so awarded cannot be entered into by this court inasmuch as this court is not an appellate forum of the tender authority of the tender authority as hereinabove observed. But the process adopted in arriving at a final decision on the basis of the evaluation of the bids of the parties to the biding process cannot be faulted merely on the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons:- (a) the qualification and criteria of the lead member of respondent No. 5 was not considered — it is held that the same is not required once anyone of the constituent members of the “joint venture” or the “consortium” satisfies the criteria as per the tender conditions, (b) the division of the ‘criteria’ into various sub-components/elements by the bid evaluation committee cannot be faulted as the same lies within the domain of the employer, (c) the bid evaluation committee has the capability of deciding the technical competence of the bidders in order to carry out the contractual job, (d) no perversity observed in taking the final decision by the said committee. 39. 39. Thus, if the said points as concluded are considered, I am not inclined to hold that the process adopted in awarding marks by the bid evaluation committee is unreasonable, arbitrary and the process adopted by the bid evaluation committee was to favour any of the participants in the biding process. 40. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 5 in respect of locus standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition challenging the tender evaluation process wherein the petitioner was not the participant as a single entity rather it participated as a joint venture along with M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. the other constituent. 41. On perusal of the writ petition it is found that the petitioner No. 1 is M/s. Merolyn Engineering Works (P.) Ltd., a limited company and lead partner in Merolyn Ananda Joint Venture and it is stated in the writ petition that petitioner No. 1 authorised the petitioner No. 2, the executive officer to represent the company, petitioner No. 1. I have perused the joint venture agreement of the petitioner No. 1 and the other constituent, M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. which is enclosed to the writ petition and therein under the heading “validity of said agreement” it is stipulated that the joint venture shall He automatically terminated in case the contract in terms of said tender was not awarded. From the affidavit in opposition by the private respondent. No. 5 it is seen that vide letter dated 29.5.2020 it was notified to the said respondent No.’ 5 that its bid dated 21.2.2020 for execution of the work under the said notice inviting bid dated 29.5.2020 was accepted by respondeht-ATDCL. In tenns of the said letter dated 29.5.2020 and pursuant to the signing of the contract, notice to proceed with the work was issued to respondent No. 5. Now if we consider the validity of the joint venture agreement entered into by the petitioner with its other constituent, M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways Ltd. the said joint venture agreement on the basis of which a jural relationship developed between the petitioner No. 1 and the other constituent of the joint venture came to an end “automatically” after awarding of the contract to the respondent No. 5. Once the validity of said agreement stood terminated “automatically” as such the power of attorney authorizing the present petitioner No. 1 to act on behalf of M/s. Ananda Shipyard and Slipways (P.) Ltd. had also lost its validity. In view of the same, the petitioner under its sole entity without the authority of the other constituent M/s. Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Ltd. has no locus standi to file this writ petition moreso when the petitioner No. 1 sought to be declared as the selected bidder with all consequential reliefs and admittedly the petitioner No. 1 solely does not fall within the definition of “bidder” under clause 1(i)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract. The relief even if the writ petition, is allowed cannot be granted to the petitioner No. 1 alone. Accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed. No cost. Send back the records. 42. Interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as on 5.6.2021 stands vacated.