JUDGMENT: VIPIN SANGHI, J. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the decision dated 22.02.2023, communicated to the petitioners by respondent No. 1, whereby, the petitioners’ technical bid submitted in respect of Tender Id No. 2022_UJWB2_52260_1, Tender Reference No. NCB/17/EE(EM)/MB-II/B/2022-23, has been rejected for the reason “As Per Tech Summary”. The Tech Summary, i.e., The Technical Evaluation (Part I) has been filed separately, which shows that the technical bid of the petitioners has been rejected, for the reason that – “Not as per footnote 04 of Section III – Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, Clause 2.4”. 2) To appreciate the reason for rejection of the petitioners’ technical bid, we may refer to Clause 2.4, and footnote 04, contained in Section III – Evaluation and Qualification Criteria. Clause 2.4, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows: Joint Venture (existing or intended) where permitted Joint Venture (existing or intended) where permitted No Subject Requirement Single Entity All members Combined Each Member Atleast one Member Submission Requirements 2.4 Litigation History No consistent history of court / / Arbitral ward a decisions Must Meet Requirement Must Meet Requirement Must Meet Requirement N/A Form Con - 2 4. The Bidder shall provide accurate information on the Letter of Bid about any litigation or arbitration resulting from bids submitted or contracts awarded or completed or ongoing under its execution over the last five years. A consistent history of court/arbitral awards against the Bidder or any member of a joint venture may result in disqualifying the Bidder. 3) The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were required to disclose the litigation history under Clause 2.4, in so far as it discloses “consistent history of court / arbitral award decisions against the bidders, since 01.01.2012”. 4) The case of the petitioners is, that they did not have any such litigation history with the respondent, which could be said to have resulted in - consistent court / arbitral award decisions against the petitioners. 5) In response to Clause 2.4, the petitioners, in their bid had stated – No Litigation History in accordance with Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, Sub-Factor 2.4 and subsequently Amended by e-Procurement Corrigendum No. – 01 We don’t have any consistent history of court/arbitral award decision against us, since 01st December, 2017. 5) In response to Clause 2.4, the petitioners, in their bid had stated – No Litigation History in accordance with Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, Sub-Factor 2.4 and subsequently Amended by e-Procurement Corrigendum No. – 01 We don’t have any consistent history of court/arbitral award decision against us, since 01st December, 2017. 6) The petitioners had also disclosed in Table-b, the following information : Tender Identification : NCB/10/EE(E&M)/AB/UJVNL/2018-19 dtd. 07.03.2019 & NCB/08/EE(E&M)VIRBHADRA BARRAGE/UUJVNL/2018-19 dtd. 14.03.2019 Name of Employer: UJVNL LTD. Address of Employer : Asan Barrage, UJVNL Ltd., Dhalipur – 248142, District – Dehradun, Uttarakhand & Virbhadra Barrage, UJVNL Ltd., - Pashulok, Rishikesh – 249203, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Matter in dispute : Regarding the total value to work of TRCM and Trash rack of our completed contract of Sainj HEP. For Unfair evaluation process with undue favours extended to other bidder Multitech Engineers with having its operators/CEO with CBI court case for financial scam at Jharkhand State Electricity Board along with then CMB of JSEB and later MD of UJVNL at the time of opening of above tenders. Party who intimated the dispute : Employer (UJVNL Ltd.) Reasons(s) for Litigation and Bid evaluation decision : Reason is not clear to us, as we were a sub-contractor of HCC and the aforesaid value of the job was subsequently certified by HCC. Moreover, in view of the decision taken by UJVNL Ltd. against us, we had to approach Honourable High Court for justice, from where we obtained the stay order, which is still holds good and the rights of GMWPL are secured with the aforesaid stay. The status of GMWPL remains the same as prior to the issuance of UJVNL decision. As a documentary evidence of above, we are enclosing the details “Court’s or Judge’s orders” 7) The petitioners had also placed on record along with the tender, the order passed by the High Court in the petitioners’ case, staying the operation of the order of blacklisting of the petitioners. 8) The submission of Mr. Vashistha is that the said disclosure made by the petitioners, including the fact that there was stay operating in respect of the blacklisting order, did not justify the rejection of the petitioners’ technical bid, on the ground, that the technical bid is not as per footnote 04 of Section III - Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, Clause 2.4. Vashistha is that the said disclosure made by the petitioners, including the fact that there was stay operating in respect of the blacklisting order, did not justify the rejection of the petitioners’ technical bid, on the ground, that the technical bid is not as per footnote 04 of Section III - Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, Clause 2.4. 9) Taking note of the aforesaid submission, this Court issued notice to the respondents, and required the respondents to file their counter-affidavit, vide order dated 02.03.2023. This Court also restrained the respondents from awarding the contract to any third party, in the meantime. 10) The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. The stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, inter alia, is reproduced as follows : “As per details furnished in Table-b (for information of litigation where bids were submitted) of Form CON-2 of the bid, M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. has litigation against UJVNL Ltd. for following tenders: a) NCB/10/EE(E&M)/AB/UJVNL/2018-19 dated 07.03.2019, & b) NCB/08/EE(E&M)/Virbhadra Barrage/UJVNL/2018-19 dated 14.03.2019 The Following writ petitions were filed by petitioner in Hon’ble High Court against above tenders and against blacklisting by UJVN Ltd.: 1. WPMS/2559/2020 2. WPMS/421/2020 3. WPMS/413/2020 4. WPMS/197/2020 5. WPMS/192/2020 2. That WPMS/413/2020 & WPMS/421 were clubbed by Hon’ble High Court and by order dated 26.02.2020, Hon’ble High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to CPMU of Central Water Commission to look into the matter and take appropriate decision on petitioner’s representation, which has been forwarded by UJVNL, in accordance with law, preferably within period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In compliance of judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, Central Project Management Unit (CPMU) of Central Water Commission (CWC), informed vide L.No.02/06/2018-DSRD/UJVNL/729-32 dated 11.03.2020 CPMU has re-examined the representation of M/s GMW and taken a final view that : A. The declaration of M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. as technically non-responsive bidder is solely based on the mis-representation of facts as per bid clause no. 3 under general section of instruction to bidders (ITB) of the official bid document as M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. submitted official bid with tampered copy of amendment no. 3 dated 06.03.2014 to original procurement order (PO) dated 08.05.2013 from employer M/s HCC Ltd. citing the cost of TRCM as Rs.3.75 Cr in place of 2.35 Cr. 3 under general section of instruction to bidders (ITB) of the official bid document as M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. submitted official bid with tampered copy of amendment no. 3 dated 06.03.2014 to original procurement order (PO) dated 08.05.2013 from employer M/s HCC Ltd. citing the cost of TRCM as Rs.3.75 Cr in place of 2.35 Cr. B. First stage credential verifications of M/s Multitech Engineers as well M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. have been done by CWC. In the case of M/s Multitech Engineers, the concerned Employer has certified the authenticity of the details given in procurement orders submitted with official bid by M/s Multitech Engineers. Therefore, CPMU of CWC did not recommend any second stage verification of official supporting documents of M/s Multitech Engineers which is recommended only in case any ambiguity/incorrectness in noticed in first stage. C. Based on above facts, CPMU of CWC re-affirms its view point that the declaration of M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. as technically non-responsive bidder is correct based on examination of various supporting documents and information furnished by evaluation committee of UJVNL and Nodal Officer, DRIP, UJVNL. The UJVNL should proceed to award the contract at the earliest keeping in view scheduled closure of scheme in June 2020 as UJVNL is liable to pay the commitment charges for the undisbursed loan amount @ 0.25% annually” D. Also, UJVNL may take appropriate action against M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. for this misrepresentation of facts as per relevant clauses of bid, which may become a deterrent to all the bidders not to submit wrong information in all future procurement to be done in the upcoming DRIP Phase-II and Phase-III with much larger outlay.” 3. That this Decision of CPMU of CWC, in compliance of judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, is not only against M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. but CPMU also recommended appropriate action against M/s GMW.” (emphasis supplied) 11) The further stand taken by the respondents in para 25 of their counter-affidavit, reads as follows: “Later M/s GMW filed a writ petition no. WPMS/2559/2020 in Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the blacklisting by UJVN Ltd. and disqualification of M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. The matter is subjudice. WPMS/2559/2020 in Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the blacklisting by UJVN Ltd. and disqualification of M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. The matter is subjudice. Wherein Honourable High Court of Uttarakhand granted stay to petitioner only on the order passed by UJVNL for blacklisting of M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. The order of disqualification of M/s GMW is still prevailing and stay on the same is not granted by the Honournable High Court of Uttarakhand. Hence, M/s GMW Pvt. Ltd. was disqualified in the invited bids as per relevant clauses of litigation history on the basis of arbitral award in previous bids of Asan & Virbhadra Barrage.” 12) The submission of Mr. Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners had made a disclosure of the writ petition preferred by the petitioners against the petitioners’ blacklisting, and that there was stay granted by the Court on the said order of blacklisting, which had been passed without grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Since there was a stay operating, the same had to be given effect to, and the effect of the stay order is, as if the blacklisting of the petitioners was not operating. 13) On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is that even if the blacklisting was not operating, that did not prevent the respondents from considering the past conduct of the petitioners in submitting tampered documents in relation to the earlier tender referred to here-in-above. 14) We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. 15) The petitioners have today itself withdrawn Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2559 of 2020, wherein a challenge had been raised to the blacklisting order, on the ground, that the said blacklisting order was valid only till 31.12.2020, and it has worked itself out. Though the said blacklisting has ceased to exist - meaning thereby, that the petitioners cannot be debarred from participating in tendering process, it does not follow that the conduct of the petitioners, which led to the said blacklisting, cannot be even taken into consideration by the respondents, while examining the petitioners’ bid in respect of tender in question. 16) We have heard detailed submissions of learned counsels on the allegations made against the petitioners, of the petitioners’ submitting forged and fabricated documents in relation to an earlier tender. 16) We have heard detailed submissions of learned counsels on the allegations made against the petitioners, of the petitioners’ submitting forged and fabricated documents in relation to an earlier tender. The long and short of the matter is that, in response to the earlier tender No. NCB/10/EE(E&M)/AB/UJVNL/2018-19 - to show its compliance of the experience and turnover criteria, the petitioners had provided an amended purchase order bearing No. 11254101, bearing amendment No. 03 dated 06.03.2024, issued by the primary contractor Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) in respect of an earlier contract. Admittedly, in the copy of the amended purchase order submitted by the petitioners along with their bid, the petitioners - on their own, redacted several entries of the purchase order, and only in respect of one entry at Sl. No. 270, the following entry was submitted : Sr. No. DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT RATE (Rs.) TAXABLE AMOUNT (Rs. 270 Trash Rack Cleaning Machine 1 SET 37,500,000.50 37,500,000.50 17) The respondents conducted an enquiry into the aforesaid aspect, by sending a communication to the HCC, and learnt that the petitioners had actually tampered with the said purchase order, by not only redacting all the other entries, but also enhancing the value of Trash Rack Cleaning Machine (TRCM) from Rs. 2.35 crores to Rs.3.75 crores. 18) Thus, it clearly emerged that the petitioners had indeed, submitted a tampered document. Pertinently, when the petitioners were given an opportunity to explain their conduct, the petitioners candidly admitted that it was a mis-representation committed by its staff. 19) Aforesaid being the position, we are of the considered view, that the decision of the respondents to disqualify the petitioners on that ground does not call for interference. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition, and vacate the interim order.