JUDGMENT : The captioned writ petitions are filed by two companies, stated to be having decades of experience in general construction industry and specific experience in constructing various types of Water Treatment Plants (WTP), who have participated in the tender invited by the Kerala Water Authority from its registered ‘Class A’ contractors in respect of the works “Construction of Intake well cum Pump house, supplying, Laying, Testing and Commissioning of Raw Water Pumping Main, Construction & Commissioning of 100 MLD Water Treatment Plant and allied structures at Koolimadu, Substations and Allied Electrics at Intake and WTP, Raw Water and Clear Water pumpsets, Supplying, Laying, Testing and Commissioning of M.S. Clear Water Pumping Main from WTP To Reservoir at Thanikkodumala, Clear Water Transmission Main from Reservoir at Thanikkodumala to various Service Reservoirs, Construction of Sump cum Pump House at Kizhakkoth and online Booster Station at Puthuppadi", and “Construction and Commissioning of 100 MLD Water Treatment Plant at Peruvannamuzhi, Floating Intake Structure, Raw Water Pump Sets, Raw Water Pumping Main, Transformers, Substation and Clear Water Transmission Main from WTP to various Reservoirs” respectively. 2. In the tenders, the petitioners did not pre-qualify; however, respondents 5 and 6 qualified. Thereafter, the financial bid was opened and the 5th respondent company became the successful bidder on the basis of the evaluation done by the committee constituted for evaluating the tenders received by the Kerala Water Authority. The evaluation done by the special committee and the consequential order passed by the Superintending Engineer produced as Exhibit P16 and Exhibit P18 (same as Exhibit P16) dated 24.03.2023 and 25.03.2023 respectively in the writ petitions are under challenge. Therefore, I heard them together and proposed to pass this common judgment. 3. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10993 of 2023 is that as per Exhibit P2 tender conditions, the tenderer should be a well established contractor/reputed firm/manufacturer with expertise and capabilities. According to the petitioner, it proved its experience through Exhibits P5 and P6 certificates. The Superintending Engineer, however, disqualified the petitioner stating that the certificates produced convinced him that the work of the Water Treatment Plant completed by the petitioner was not with sludge blanket process. According to the petitioner, the said evaluation of the Superintending Engineer was to help the 5th respondent company by removing a competitive tender against the public interest. The Superintending Engineer, however, disqualified the petitioner stating that the certificates produced convinced him that the work of the Water Treatment Plant completed by the petitioner was not with sludge blanket process. According to the petitioner, the said evaluation of the Superintending Engineer was to help the 5th respondent company by removing a competitive tender against the public interest. It is further submitted that Exhibit P5 certificate issued by the Water Works Engineer, Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal Corporation, shows that the petitioner used new modern technology. It is also pointed out that Exhibit P6 certificate issued by the very same authority shows that the petitioner used new modern technology with tube settlers as the Department instructed it as per the site conditions. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Exhibit P6 would show that the petitioner’s experience is in the same field as that of the one prescribed as per Exhibits P1 and P2 notified by the Kerala Water Authority, albeit in a different manner. 4. That apart, it is contended that the experience claimed by the 5th respondent company and Mr. Joseph John, respondent No.6, for the same work done i.e., a 50 MLD capacity Water Treatment Plant with rectangular flat bottom, sledge blanket clariflocculator with plate settler, filter chamber with dual filter and nozzles and SCADA, is not in accordance with the requirements in the Notice Inviting Tenders and therefore, they are not qualified tenderers. That apart, it is contended that clause 7.17.1.2.4 of Exhibit P2 detailed Tender Inviting Notice does not pre-qualify any of the partners of the company individually based on a joint venture experience. 5. It is also contended that if the joint venture is dissolved, a partner can claim experience only for that part of the work he was responsible for the same as a partner and as the agreement authority certifies. Therefore, it is submitted that applying that standard to the 5th respondent, the Executive Engineer could not have counted its experience in a joint venture with M/s. M. Gowda and Company. It is also submitted that to overcome the said aspect, the Executive Engineer, relies on certain alleged clauses of joint venture enabling a member of the venture to claim independent experience, even if the work was executed jointly. It is also submitted that to overcome the said aspect, the Executive Engineer, relies on certain alleged clauses of joint venture enabling a member of the venture to claim independent experience, even if the work was executed jointly. Relying upon the said provision, it is submitted that the tender conditions prevail over any joint venture agreement and the Executive Engineer ought to have realised that those clauses would defeat the mandatory provisions of Exhibits P1 and P2 Notice Inviting Tender and the detailed Notice Inviting Tender. 6. That apart, it is contended that Exhibit P8 experience certificate submitted by the 5th respondent was fake and the same requires to be investigated, since as per Exhibit P9 information dated 28.02.2023 issued under the Right to Information Act by the Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Circle, Malappuram, the said office has not undertaken any such work as shown in the drawing using flat bottom upward flow sludge blanket technology. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the evaluation done by the Special Committee to pre-qualify the bidders and the consequential order passed by the Superintending Engineer require interference. Typical contentions are raised by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.10996 of 2023 and therefore, separate narration of facts are not necessitated. At the admission stage itself, counsel appeared for the 5th respondent. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the successful bidder submitted that the evaluation done by the special committee is in accordance with the requirements contained in the Notice Inviting Tender and the detailed Tender Notice. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not have the qualification in view of the specific and typical qualification prescribed under the detailed Notice Inviting Tender. 8. That apart, it is submitted that a specialised committee constituted for the purpose evaluated the pre-qualification of the bidders and has arrived at definite conclusions with respect to the pre-qualification of each one of the bidders, after conducting a deep seated analysis of each and every tender. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the successful bidder, no interference is required to the report of the Special Evaluation Committee disqualifying the petitioners and the consequential order passed by the Superintending Engineer. 9. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the successful bidder, no interference is required to the report of the Special Evaluation Committee disqualifying the petitioners and the consequential order passed by the Superintending Engineer. 9. It was also submitted that after the report of the evaluation committee and the consequential order, the financial bid was opened and the successful bidder, the 5th respondent had executed the agreement with the Kerala Water Authority. Consequent to the directions made on 29.03.2023, the agreement and other security documents are produced along with a memo dated 30.03.2023. Therefore, the writ petitions, though reserved for Judgment after hearing on 29.03.2023, were posted again on 04.03.2023, and had heard the respective counsel again. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority also advanced arguments supporting the evaluation of the Special Committee and consequential order passed by the tender authority. 11. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. George Poonthottam assisted by Smt. N. Anand, Sri. S. Sreekumar, Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent company assisted by Adv. P. Prijith and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority Sri. P.M. Johny, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 12. The issues raised in these writ petitions have a chequered history, and for a better and proper appreciation of the same, they are narrated briefly as is discernible from the Minutes of the Special Committee dated 24.03.2023. Administrative sanction for the project was issued as per Government Order dated 18.09.2021 for Rs.70100.00 lakhs. The E-tender was floated by the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Kozhikode in two-cover system as per tender notification dated 19.10.2022. The documents were uploaded electronically by bidders for evaluation and pre-qualification to the Office of the Chief Engineer (NR). The following bidders participated in the bid: 1) Sri. Abbas P.P., Palliparamban House, Kuniyil, Keezhuparanbu P.O., Areekode. 2) M/s Marymatha TCS Consortium - M/s Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited, Marymatha Square, Arakkuzha Road, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist. 686 661 Consortium with M/s Tomar Construction Services Inc.18 connerty Court, Suit B, East Brunswik, NJ 08816, USA. 3) M/s Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., C.S.No.1031/K2 E ward, 3rd Floor, sterling Tower, Gavat mandal, Shahu puri, Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416001. 4) M/s Dineshchandra R. Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd., 401, The Grand Mall, Opp. 686 661 Consortium with M/s Tomar Construction Services Inc.18 connerty Court, Suit B, East Brunswik, NJ 08816, USA. 3) M/s Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., C.S.No.1031/K2 E ward, 3rd Floor, sterling Tower, Gavat mandal, Shahu puri, Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416001. 4) M/s Dineshchandra R. Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd., 401, The Grand Mall, Opp. State Bank Zonal Office, Ambavadi, SM Road, Ahmedabad 380015 JV with M/s Jayantisuper Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12-Sahajanand Society, Urban Bank Road, Mehsana, Gujarat-384002. 5) Sri. Joseph John, Monipillil House, Avoli P.O., Anicadu, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist, Kerala JV with M/s K. Gowda and Company No.19th, 8th Main, 4th Block II, Phase, Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore.560085. 6) M/s Midland Engineering and Company, Varikkodan Building, Valiyavarambu road, Downhill (PO), Malappuram 676 519. 13. The Special Committee for pre-qualification approval in the office of the Chief Engineer (NR) met on 04.11.2022, verified the bid documents and has arrived at the following conclusions: 1) The bidder, Sri. Abbas P.P., Palliparamban House, Kuniyil, Keezhuparambu PO, Areekode does not have sufficient financial capacity. Hence it was decided to disqualify the bidder Sri. Abbas P.P. 2) The remaining five bidders are found to Cope up with financial criteria. 3) The documents submitted to claim the specific experience as to the construction of Water Treatment Plant (WTP) by these 5 bidders were found not adequate to prove the specific experience prescribed as per clause 7.17.1.2.8 of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). 14. Hence, the committee decided to obtain clarifications in that regard. Accordingly, the certifying authorities for bidders 2, 3, 5 and 6 were addressed through e-mail for clarifications. However, the replies received for bidders 2 and 3 were found to be acceptable. Hence, all the bidders were addressed seeking corroborative details to prove the specific experience on 04.11.2022 through e-mail. In reply, the bidders with Sl. Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 submitted further details. The Committee met again on 14.11.2022 to decide upon pre-qualification. The details received from the bidders to prove their credentials as to the experience of construction of WTP were verified in detail in the meeting and it was found that the documents submitted by the bidders were not adequate to prove the experience as per clause 7.17.1.2.8 of the Notice Inviting Tender i.e., the experience of having constructed a similar Water Treatment Plant. 15. 15. After a detailed discussion, the committee arrived at a conclusion that no bidder is having specified experiences stipulated in Notice Inviting Tender and decided to disqualify provisionally the remaining five bidders as well. Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Kozhikode, issued pre-qualification proceedings (provisional) as per Order dated 18.11.2022. The Superintending Engineer reported that a provisional proceedings on pre-qualification was communicated through e-mail to all the bidders who participated in the tender. 16. The bidders namely Sri. Joseph John, M/s. Midland Engineering and Contracting Company, M/s. Marymatha TCS Consortium–M/s. Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited and M/s. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. submitted an appeal against disqualification to the Superintending Engineer within the allowed time. It was after considering the appeal and the objections raised by the bidders, findings were rendered by the evaluation committee, which is elaborately and in more detail furnished in the report. 17. In fact, the experience of the bidders, which is the prime and main issue in the writ petitions, is one among the criteria in the detailed Tender Notice. Clause 7.17.1.2.4 specifies that experience of a joint venture does not pre-qualify any of its partners individually. In the case of dissolution of a joint venture, a partner can claim experience only for that part of the scope of work for which he was responsible as a partner in the joint venture, as certified by the Agreement Authority. 18. Clause 7.17.1.2.8 stipulates that in case of 'construction of Water Treatment Plants with modern technology (except conventional Filters, Lamella, Plate settler, Tube settler)', the bidder must have constructed:- (a) a Water Treatment Plant in the past with any Technology for a minimum of 40% output capacity subject to a maximum of 40 MLD for his sole/joint venture/partner of the joint venture; and also (b) a Water Treatment Plant in the past with similar technology for a minimum of 10% output capacity of the proposed treatment plant for his sole/Joint Venture/Partner of the Joint Venture. It is further stipulated therein that if the bidder has 40% experience in the same innovative technology, no further experience in conventional technology is required. 19. Further, clause 7.17.1.2.21 specifies that certificates of experience issued by the Agreement Executing Authority or an Officer in charge of the plant/pipeline work not below the rank of Executive Engineer of Central/State Govt./Public Sector Undertakings only will be considered for evaluation. 20. 19. Further, clause 7.17.1.2.21 specifies that certificates of experience issued by the Agreement Executing Authority or an Officer in charge of the plant/pipeline work not below the rank of Executive Engineer of Central/State Govt./Public Sector Undertakings only will be considered for evaluation. 20. The Special Committee for pre qualification approval of tenders consisted of Chief Engineer as the Chairman, Deputy Chief Engineer (Northern Region), Deputy Accounts Manager, Office of the Chief Engineer, Northern Region and the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Kozhikode, and one Deputy Chief Engineer (Vigilance) as a special invitee. The Special Committee had occasion to consider the issue consequent to the objections raised by the participants in the bid, who have approached this Court by filing various writ petitions which were disposed of as per Exhibit P14 common judgment dated 28.02.2023 in W.P.(C) Nos.37350 of 2022 and connected cases, wherein a direction was issued to the Superintending Engineer, P.H.Circle, Kozhikode, to consider the objections and additional objections submitted by the petitioners at the earliest and after providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to the petitioners. 21. It was accordingly that Exhibit P16 evaluation was done by the Special Committee. On a perusal of Exhibit P16 produced in W.P.(C) No.10993 of 2023, it is clear that the committee has taken into consideration all the points raised by the petitioners and other bidders, including the contentions advanced with respect to the clauses contained in the detailed Notice Inviting Tender referred to above. 22. It is also clear from the report of the Special Committee that the issue with respect to the alleged fraudulent certificate submitted by the 5th respondent was also considered by the committee. The findings rendered by the committee with respect to the petitioner company in Exhibit P16 is as follows: M/s Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., C.S.No.1031/K2 E ward, 3rd Floor, Sterling Tower, Gavat mandal, Shahu Puri, Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416 001. The bidder has submitted a certificate from water works engineer of Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra. In the certificate, the scope reads as "Designing, Providing Constructing, successfully water tightness test, Water Treatment Plant for 70 MLD Capacity with modern technology (íe. Instrumentation, Automation, PLC and SCADA System, Flow Meter, Monitor, display panel, networking, control panel with power backup arrangement etc. In the certificate, the scope reads as "Designing, Providing Constructing, successfully water tightness test, Water Treatment Plant for 70 MLD Capacity with modern technology (íe. Instrumentation, Automation, PLC and SCADA System, Flow Meter, Monitor, display panel, networking, control panel with power backup arrangement etc. having Cost Rs.4,93,45,000/-) Consisting of pipe lines, Inlet works, cascade aerator, Parshall flume, Raw water Channel to Distribution Chamber for Rapid Coagulant Mixing Unit (Hydraulic/Mechanical Flocculation Process Unit), Flocculation - Settling facility (Settling Unit/Clarification system), High rate Filters, Overhead Backwash water storage Tank, Backwash wastewater sump, Sludge sump for clariflocçulator, Filtered Water sump for backwash tank filling, Sludge Recirculation System, Chemical House for chemical storage and installation of Chemical Dosing System, Poly-aluminum chloride storage tank and unloading facility Filter Annexure for Blower Room, Backwash Tank filling pump, MCC and control panel building, Laboratory Chlorination Shed, Filtered Water Outlet Channel with flow measurement., Administrative Building, Rest house, Area drainage and internal roads, tree plantation, landscaping and internal & external electrical works and mechanical works etc." From the certificate it is not clear whether the WTP constructed is similar to the one envisaged in this project. The bidder failed to furnish details to Substantiate his having experience of constructing a similar WTP. The Committee examined the clarification received from Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra and convinced that the WTP was not with the process of sludge blanket. The process adopted is with tube settlers. Hence, the committee concluded that the bidder is not having experience of constructing a similar WTP. The Committee observed that the bidder cannot be qualified because of the reasons mentioned above.” 23. Therefore, it can be seen that the committee has evaluated the above experience of the petitioner, taking into account the certificates produced by the petitioner and has arrived at a conclusion that it does not meet up with the requirements of the detailed Notice Inviting Tender. The committee evaluated the pre - qualification bid of the 5th respondent in the following manner. 6. M/s Midland Engineering and Contracting Company, Varikkodan Building, Valiyavararmbu road, Downhill (PO), Malappuram 676 519. The bidder, M/s. Midland Engineering and Contracting Company too reported quoting relevant NIT Clauses that they have produced a valid experience certificate issued by a competent Engineer in accordance with NIT Cause 7.17.12.21. 6. M/s Midland Engineering and Contracting Company, Varikkodan Building, Valiyavararmbu road, Downhill (PO), Malappuram 676 519. The bidder, M/s. Midland Engineering and Contracting Company too reported quoting relevant NIT Clauses that they have produced a valid experience certificate issued by a competent Engineer in accordance with NIT Cause 7.17.12.21. They also claimed that they have furnished details of works in Q1 to Q8 which includes construction of WTP at Tanur which is also of same technology executed by the other partner of the Firm, namely Sri. V. Siddique. The bidder also claims that "Even though the first mentioned work was done as joint venture by us, we can claim the experience because the Work was executed by us and it was clearly given in the Joint venture agreement formed for executing the work. Those JV agreement and mutual agreement is a part of the agreement." However objections were raised by bidders 2 and 3 stating that the WTP at Ponnani of which the experience is claimed by this bidder is not similar to the WTP envisaged in this project. They further alleged that 'in the Ponnani WTP project the method adopted is not flat bottom type (The objections are appended).' They also alleged that a joint venture partner for Construction of Sri. Shahul Hameed V. and not M/s. Midland Engineering and Contracting Company. They added that a Power of Attorney Agreement executed by Sri, Shahul Hameed V. in favour to M/s. Midland Engineering and Contracting Company during the course of work was cancelled by the Board of KWA. Hence, the bidder is not entitled to claim the experience. Further, according to order no.KWA/JB/PMU/11315/2018 dtd. 28.03.2018 of Managing Director, KWA a joínt venture partner cannot claim the experience of the whole work. The committee examined the claims and objections/allegations in detail. It was noted that Sri. Shahul Hameed V., the Managing Partner of bidder firm has constructed a 50 mld WTP at Ponnani being a partner of a joint venture entity. The agreement of the said work was executed on 17.10.2018. As per Order No.KWA/JB/PMU/11315/2018 dtd. 28.03.2019 for the works with agreements after 28.09.2018 a joint venture partner can claim experience only for the portion of the work for which he was responsible. The agreement of the said work was executed on 17.10.2018. As per Order No.KWA/JB/PMU/11315/2018 dtd. 28.03.2019 for the works with agreements after 28.09.2018 a joint venture partner can claim experience only for the portion of the work for which he was responsible. But on verification of the JV agreement and the mutual agreement between the four JV partners for the above work, it is found that they had agreed amongst them that considering the nature of work to be executed, as its components are so inseparable and interlinked and cannot be executed in a severed manner the parties agreed for executing the project in a joint manner. They had further agreed that the experience gained out of the work can be used by the parties independently (conditions 2 and 14 of mutual agreement dated 07.08.2017). The committee verified his claim and observed that the claim as per the JV agreement for the said work is true. The JV agreement for the work mentioned above between M/s. K. Gowda & Company/M/s. Ramesh Engineers and Contractors, Thumkur, M/s. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders, Bangalore, and Sri V. Shahul Hameed, Varikkodan house, Downhill, Malappuram was formed On 07.08.2017. The agreement with KWA for the work was executed on 17.10.2018 due to delay in awarding the work which is after the date of Proceedings No.KWA/JBTMU/11315/2018 dated 28.03.2019 of the Managing Director. The mutual agreement of JV clause 2. states "It is agreed that considering the nature of work to be executed, as its components are so inseparable and interlinked which cannot be executed in a severed manner the parties have agreed that the most desirable form of executing the project will be in a joint manner. The parties, therefore, agreed to make contribution to the Joint Venture accordingly. " It is seen that this tender was invited by the Superintending Engineer, PH Circle, Malappuram with due date on 09.08.2017 and sanctioned by the MD, KWA on 12.10.2018 vide order- No.KWA/HO/W/MPM/KIIFB-1617/TD--14/33/2017 and subsequently entered into contract by the agreement dt.17.10.2018, the JV agreement being part of contract agreement. As such it is clear that the above mentioned JV agreement was accepted by the authority. The committee observed that the role of the Srl. Shahul Hameed V., the Managing Partner of bldder firm In the work of WTP at Ponnanl Is jointly and severally. As such it is clear that the above mentioned JV agreement was accepted by the authority. The committee observed that the role of the Srl. Shahul Hameed V., the Managing Partner of bldder firm In the work of WTP at Ponnanl Is jointly and severally. Further as per the decisions of various Hon. Courts produced before the committee by the bidder, the experience of an Individual partner forms the experience of a partnership firm entered into by him with others. In this case, the bidder firm is partnership concern of which Sri, Shahul Hameed V. is the Managing Partner. Hence the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Project Division, Malappuram Is acceptable. Upon verification of the file No.DB1-Project/124/2017 Vol.IV of Project Division, Malappuram It was found that the Executive Engineer took a learned decision considering this legal aspect and Issued the certificate of experience accordingly. The process envisaged in the new project is with upward flow sludge blanket method with a pipe system having perforation to inject the raw water Into the clariflocculator unit at a horizontal plane at bottom. From the drawings No.DWG-MID-073 to 075 approved by the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Malappuram, it is clear that the process is upward flow sludge blanket type and the injection is at horizontal plane through a perforated pipe system. The committee observed that the objections raised by the contesting bidders are not correct. The experience of the bidder is of a similar WTP of adequate capacity to get qualified as per clause 7.17.1.2.8 of NIT. In the light of the above, the committee concluded to accept the experience certificate produced by M/s. Mldland Engineering and Contracting Company as valid.” 24. It is also evident that it was after an elaborate evaluation of the pros and cons of the matter, the committee arrived at the conclusion to pre-qualify the respondent Nos.5 and 6. In fact, other 3 bidders were also disqualified for want of required qualification prescribed under the Notice Inviting Tender and the detailed Tender Notice. 25. Insofar as W.P.(C) No.10996 of 2023 is concerned, Exhibit P18 is under challenge which is the same as that of Exhibit P16. The petitioner therein submitted a bid in joint venture with Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., which is the petitioner in the other connected writ petition. 25. Insofar as W.P.(C) No.10996 of 2023 is concerned, Exhibit P18 is under challenge which is the same as that of Exhibit P16. The petitioner therein submitted a bid in joint venture with Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., which is the petitioner in the other connected writ petition. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Evaluation Committee and extracted above would equally apply to the petitioner in the instant writ petition also. 26. In my considered opinion, the Special Committee constituted for the purpose, after conducting an in-depth analysis of the tenders received along with the documents for the past experience and the objections raised by the rival tenderers, arrived at the conclusion that respondent Nos.5 and 6 were alone entitled to be pre- qualified to participate in the financial bid. 27. After going through the provisions of the detailed Tender Notice discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the past experience has to be considered taking into account the parameters provided under clause 7 of the detailed Tender Notice, from where it is clear that the contentions advanced by the petitioners with respect to the pre-qualification of respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot be sustained. It is equally important to note that the Special Committee has specifically considered all the issues raised by the petitioners and has arrived at the findings taking into account the objections raised by the petitioners. 28. Learned Senior counsel for the 5th respondent has invited my attention to various judgments of the apex court in regard to the issues raised. The issue with respect to the determination to be done in case of a joint venture company when the eligibility certificate is issued in the name of the joint venture partners, was considered by the Apex Court in Ganpati RV Talleres Alegria Track (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 1 SCC 589 , and it is held as follows: 23. Even if it be assumed that the requirement regarding experience as set out in the advertisement dated 22-4-1993 inviting tenders is a condition about eligibility for consideration of the tender, though we find no basis for the same, the said requirement regarding experience cannot be construed to mean that the said experience should be of the tenderer in his name only. It is possible to visualise a situation where a person having past experience has entered into a partnership and the tender has been submitted in the name of the partnership firm which may not have any past experience in its own name. That does not mean that the earlier experience of one of the partners of the firm cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly, a company incorporated under the Companies Act having past experience may undergo reorganisation as a result of merger or amalgamation with another company which may have no such past experience and the tender is submitted in the name of the reorganised company. It could not be the purport of the requirement about experience that the experience of the company which has merged into the reorganised company cannot be taken into consideration because the tender has not been submitted in its name and has been submitted in the name of the reorganised company which does not have experience in its name. Conversely there may be a split in a company and persons looking after a particular field of the business of the company form a new company after leaving it. The new company, though having persons with experience in the field, has no experience in its name while the original company having experience in its name lacks persons with experience. The requirement regarding experience does not mean that the offer of the original company must be considered because it has experience in its name though it does not have experienced persons with it and ignore the offer of the new company because it does not have experience in its name though it has persons having experience in the field. While considering the requirement regarding experience it has to be borne in mind that the said requirement is contained in a document inviting offers for a commercial transaction. The terms and conditions of such a document have to be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. When a businessman enters into a contract whereunder some work is to be performed he seeks to assure himself about the credentials of the person who is to be entrusted with the performance of the work. The terms and conditions of such a document have to be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. When a businessman enters into a contract whereunder some work is to be performed he seeks to assure himself about the credentials of the person who is to be entrusted with the performance of the work. Such credentials are to be examined from a commercial point of view which means that if the contract is to be entered with a company he will look into the background of the company and the persons who are in control of the same and their capacity to execute the work. He would go not by the name of the company but by the persons behind the company. While keeping in view the past experience he would also take note of the present state of affairs and the equipment and resources at the disposal of the company. The same has to be the approach of the authorities while considering a tender received in response to the advertisement issued on 22-4-1993. This would require that first the terms of the offer must be examined and if they are found satisfactory the next step would be to consider the credentials of the tenderer and his ability to perform the work to be entrusted. For judging the credentials past experience will have to be considered along with the present state of equipment and resources available with the tenderer. Past experience may not be of much help if the machinery and equipment is outdated. Conversely lack of experience may be made good by improved technology and better equipment. The advertisement dated 22-4-1993 when read with the notice for inviting tenders dated 26-4-1993 does not preclude adoption of this course of action. If the Tender Evaluation Committee had adopted this approach and had examined the tender of NHL in this perspective it would have found that NHL, being a joint venture, has access to the benefit of the resources and strength of its parent/owning companies as well as to the experience in database management, sales and publishing of its parent group companies because after reorganisation of the Company in 1992 60% of the share capital of NHL is owned by Indian group of companies, namely, TPI, LMI, WML, etc. and Mr Aroon Purie and 40% of the share capital is owned by IIPL, a whollyowned subsidiary of Singapore Telecom which was established in 1967 and is having long experience in publishing the Singapore telephone directory with yellow pages and other directories. Moreover, in the tender it was specifically stated that IIPL will be providing its unique integrated directory management system along with the expertise of its managers and that the managers will be actively involved in the project both out of Singapore and resident in India. 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). A joint venture can take the form of a corporation wherein two or more persons or companies may join together. A joint venture corporation has been defined as a corporation which has joined with other individuals or corporations within the corporate framework in some specific undertaking commonly found in oil, chemicals, electronic, atomic fields. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., p.342) Joint venture companies are now being increasingly formed in relation to projects requiring inflow of foreign capital or technical expertise in the fast developing countries in East Asia viz. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, etc. [See Jacques Buhart : Joint Ventures in East Asia — Legal Issues (1991)]. There has been similar growth of joint ventures in our country wherein foreign companies join with Indian counterparts and contribute towards capital and technical know-how for the success of the venture. The High Court has taken note of this connotation of the expression ‘joint venture’. But the High Court has held that NHL is not a joint venture and that there is only a certain amount of equity participation by a foreign company in it. The High Court has taken note of this connotation of the expression ‘joint venture’. But the High Court has held that NHL is not a joint venture and that there is only a certain amount of equity participation by a foreign company in it. We are unable to agree with the said view of the High Court. 29. Judicial review in cases involving tenders was considered by the Apex Court in N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others (2022) 6 SCC 127 , in which after taking into account a large number of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, the following conclusions were arrived at: 22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e. not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was mala fide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 30. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present day Governments are expected to work. 31. Therefore, the sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is required to the decision of the Special Committee to disqualify the petitioners and the consequential decision of the tender authority. Considering the facts and circumstances and the conditions contained in the Notice Inviting Tender and the detailed Tender Notice, I am of the view that the Special Committee has examined the entire pros and cons of the matter and has arrived at its own conclusions, taking into account the contentions advanced and the documents produced by the respective bidders. 32. Even though the petitioners have raised contentions with respect to the ineligibility of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to prequalify, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the evaluation done by the Special Committee, is in any way, illegal, arbitrary, perverse, or out of any extraneous considerations or malafides. It is also equally important to note that the Special Committee has evaluated the past experience of the petitioners and has arrived at its own findings, taking into account the documents produced and therefore, it cannot be said that the said evaluation is, in any way, bad, illegal or arbitrary. 33. It is also equally important to note that the Special Committee has evaluated the past experience of the petitioners and has arrived at its own findings, taking into account the documents produced and therefore, it cannot be said that the said evaluation is, in any way, bad, illegal or arbitrary. 33. Above all, a full fledged hearing and participation was given to all the bidders by the Special Committee consisting of technically qualified persons, and the petitioners have not established any case of illegality, arbitrariness or any other legal infirmities to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Special Committee, in order to interfere with the consequential order passed by the tender authority disqualifying the petitioners. 34. It is well settled in law that when a specialized and technical committee takes a decision, taking into consideration the objections raised by the parties, the writ court is not expected to interfere with the findings rendered by the Special Committee. Moreover, the contract in question is a commercial contract ventured by the Kerala Water Authority and therefore, insofar as the qualification in the Notice Inviting Tenders are concerned, it will have to be viewed from the requirements of the employer. 35. Considering the bundle of facts and law, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Special Committee disqualifying the petitioners in the pre-qualification bid. Needless to say, writ petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.