Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

23950 of 2004

Attorney(S)

Shivakumar
Satish Parasaran
S.Venkiteswaran
P.Wilson
P.S.Raman
Nalini Chidambaram
Gladys Daniel

Judges

Mr. Justice D. Murugesan

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The two writ petitions consolidated in this order concern challenges to steps taken by M/s Ennore Port Limited ("Ennore Port") in a tender process to select a developer on a BOT basis for a common user coal terminal at Ennore Port.

Facts and procedural history as given in the opinion:

Ennore Port issued an advertisement in October 2002 calling for tenders and issued a Request for Qualification (RFQ). The RFQ included Part VII setting out eligibility criteria (clauses 7.3 and 7.4).
The petitioner, M/s South India Corporation Limited, formed a consortium with Portia Management Services Limited (UK) and Navyuga Engineering Company Limited (Vizag) holding 36%, 32% and 32% equity respectively. The petitioner submitted RFQ documents on 18.12.2002.
Ennore Port communicated on 14.5.2003 (and follow-up letter dated 4.6.2003) that the petitioner's consortium was not shortlisted because the lead consortium member (the petitioner) did not meet minimum financial criteria. A clarification letter of Ennore Port dated 28.11.2002 was relied upon in this communication.
The petitioner challenged those communications in W.P.No.23950/2004, alleging arbitrariness and misinterpretation of the RFQ, and contending Portia Management's financials (32% stake and substantial tangible net worth/ assets/bridge financing) should have been considered.
In W.P.No.10781/2005 the petitioner challenged a separate aspect of the tender process — that Ennore Port allowed M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited to participate/submit documents though the bid was by M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited. Ennore Port explained this occurred by mistake and that Leighton Singapore later withdrew its bid.
The Court heard senior counsel for the petitioners and respondents and examined the scope of judicial review in tender matters before deciding both petitions together.
Final disposition (as recorded): W.P.No.23950/2004 was allowed; W.P.No.10781/2005 was closed as academic. No costs; connected applications closed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Ennore Port's communications dated 14.5.2003 and 4.6.2003 excluding the petitioner from the shortlist on the ground that the lead consortium member did not meet the minimum financial criteria were arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to the RFQ documents (in particular Clause 7.4 and the clarification dated 28.11.2002).
Whether Ennore Port's allowing M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited to furnish RFQ documents (when M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited was the bidder) rendered the tender process flawed, and whether that action warranted relief in W.P.No.10781/2005.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The decision to exclude the petitioner from the shortlist was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the tender terms because Clause 7.4 and Exhibit 6 of the RFQ require that the financial eligibility of the consortium be considered in its entirety.
Portia Management Services Limited, holding 32% of the consortium equity and having substantial tangible net worth, should have been treated as satisfying the minimum financial criteria (Portia's stake exceeds the minimum 26% referred to in the documents).
The clarification dated 28.11.2002 cannot change the tender conditions and any misinterpretation (of Clause 7.4) by Ennore Port is challengeable.
In W.P.No.10781/2005, the petitioner argued that allowing Leighton Singapore (which had not submitted the original bid) to participate was improper and prejudicial.

Respondent Ennore Port's Arguments

The RFQ/tender documents and their conditions cannot be lightly questioned; the court's jurisdiction to review tender conditions is limited.
The financial ability requirement is meant to ensure that the Lead Consortium Member has financial ability and responsibility; the clarification of 28.11.2002 merely reiterated Clause 7.4.
The petitioner, having participated, was aware of the clarification and cannot now challenge it.
Regarding Leighton, any issuance of documents to Leighton Singapore was a mistake (same address as the actual bidder Leighton Asia); Leighton Asia asked Ennore Port to accept Leighton Singapore's RFQ documents and later Leighton Singapore withdrew the bid.

Other Respondent(s)

M/s Adani Exports Limited (5th respondent in W.P.No.10781/2005) adopted the Ennore Port's stand and sought dismissal, noting its own bid had not been considered due to the pendency of proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994 (6) SCC 651)	Principles of judicial restraint in administrative action; court reviews the manner of decision-making (not substitute its own); lack of expertise to correct administrative decisions; invitation to tender generally lies in the realm of contract and is not open to full judicial scrutiny; decisions must not be arbitrary, biased or actuated by mala fides; decisions tested by Wednesbury principle of reasonableness.	The Court used Tata Cellular to frame the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters: to ensure the tendering authority did not act arbitrarily and complied with fairness and reasonableness, without substituting its own commercial judgment.
New Horizons Limited v. Union of India	While courts cannot review conditions of tender as such, State action is governed by Article 14 which excludes arbitrariness; government must act fairly and reasonably and not by standards that are arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.	The Court relied on New Horizons to emphasize that tendering authorities must not act arbitrarily and to justify looking into whether Clause 7.4 was applied reasonably and without arbitrariness.
Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited (AIR ...)	The State may choose its method in fixing conditions but must comply with norms, standards and procedure; decisions should be based on an overall view after weighing relevant factors and commercial viability.	Cited to support the proposition that while commercial discretion is permitted, the authority must still adhere to standards and weigh relevant factors—informing the Court's review of Ennore Port's approach.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948 (1) KB 223)	Defines the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness: a public authority's decision can be quashed if it is such that no reasonable authority properly directing itself could have reached it.	The Court applied the Wednesbury standard to test whether Ennore Port's exclusion of the petitioner was arbitrary or unreasonable; the principle supported setting aside the impugned communications as irrational.
New Horison (NHL) / joint venture jurisprudence (as discussed in the opinion)	In a joint venture, the experience (and for present purposes financial capability) of constituent members must be considered; courts may look through the corporate veil to assess the true nature of the entity where appropriate.	The Court used this line of reasoning to hold that in the case of a bidding consortium the financial capability of a constituent (here Portia Management Services) could be treated as satisfying financial eligibility when the consortium structure and the RFQ permitted such treatment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in a stepwise manner, grounded in the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and the RFQ's specific language:

The Court acknowledged settled law (Tata Cellular, New Horizons, Air India and the Wednesbury principle) that judicial review in tender matters is limited to checking for arbitrariness, bias, mala fides or procedural unfairness; courts do not substitute commercial or technical judgment of the authority.
The Court examined the RFQ definitions and clauses. It noted the RFQ definitions for "Bidding Company", "Bidding Consortium", "Consortium Member" and "Lead Consortium Member", and that the Lead Consortium Member (including its promoters and/or affiliates where corporate) must make the maximum equity contribution and this contribution should not be less than 26%.
The Court analysed Part VII eligibility criteria:
- Clause 7.3 (experience/track record) permitted experience to be satisfied by any member with a minimum stake of 11%.
- Clause 7.4 (financial capability) stated financial capability would be evaluated for a bidding company or any one of its promoters; for a bidding consortium, the financial capability of a Lead Consortium Member or any one of its promoters would be evaluated.
The Court held Clause 7.4 must be read with Clause 7.3 and concluded that in evaluating financial capability of a bidding consortium the RFQ allowed consideration not only of the lead consortium member but also of any one of its promoters. The Court treated the clarification letter of 28.11.2002 (which specified numeric financial parameters) as only a clarification and not a substitution of Clause 7.4.
Applying the RFQ text and the cited precedents (including the joint-venture reasoning in the New Horizons/NHL line), the Court found no basis to exclude the financial capability of Portia Management Services Limited (a consortium member/promoter) from consideration: Portia had substantial tangible net worth, assets and bridge-financing capability as stated in the record.
The Court concluded Ennore Port's refusal to shortlist the petitioner on the ground that the lead member (South India Corporation Limited) alone failed the financial criteria — without considering Portia's financials — was arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable under the Wednesbury principle. Consequently the communications dated 14.5.2003 and 4.6.2003 were set aside.
As to W.P.No.10781/2005 (Leighton issue), the Court found Ennore Port had initially sent RFQ documents to Leighton Singapore by mistake. Although the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the 4th respondent ought not to have allowed Leighton Singapore to submit RFQ documents, Ennore Port represented that Leighton Singapore later withdrew its bid. Because of that subsequent development, the issue became academic and the Court declined to adjudicate it further, closing the petition without specific orders.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The Court's dispositive rulings, as recorded in the opinion, are:

W.P.No.23950/2004 — ALLOWED. The communications of Ennore Port dated 14.5.2003 and 4.6.2003 are set aside.
W.P.No.10781/2005 — CLOSED (treated as academic in view of subsequent withdrawal of the bid by M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited).

Implications and direct effects:

Direct effect on parties in W.P.No.23950/2004: The petitioner's consortium must be reconsidered for shortlisting with the financial capability of Portia Management Services Limited (the consortium member/promoter) taken into account under Clause 7.4 as interpreted by the Court.
Direct effect on W.P.No.10781/2005: No adjudication of the substantive tender irregularity was made because the purportedly irregular bidder withdrew; the petition is closed as academic and no specific remedial order was issued.
The Court did not purport to set a new general precedent beyond applying established principles (Tata Cellular, New Horizons, Wednesbury). The decision enforces that tender conditions must be applied consistently and not arbitrarily, and that where the RFQ permits considering a promoter's financial capability, that permissibility must be respected in evaluation.

No additional facts, arguments, or legal authorities beyond those contained in the provided opinion have been added to this summary.

Show full summary ...

M/S South India Corporation Limited Represented By Its Director Another v. M/S Ennore Port Limited Others

Page 1144

1. The issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are interlinked and therefore, they are disposed by this common order.

2. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioner is M/s South India Corporation Limited and the first respondent is M/s Ennore Port Limited. In W.P.No.23950/2004, the petitioner has questioned the communication of the first respondent(hereinafter referred to as " Ennore Port") dated 14.5.2003 and the consequential letter dated 4.6.2003. During October, 2002, an advertisement was issued by Ennore Port, calling for tenders for selection of a developer for design, engineering, financial construction, operation, maintenance and market a common user coal terminal on BOT basis at Ennore Port. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the respondent had also issued a request for qualification shortly known as RFQ.

3. The petitioner formed a Consortium consisting of itself and a leading UK based company Portia Management Services Limited and Navyuga Engineering Company Limited, Vizag, having equities of 36%, 32% Page 1145 and 32% respectively. By the letter dated 18.12.2002, the petitioner submitted its RFQ documents. However, the petitioner was informed by Ennore Port in its communication dated 14.5.2003 stating that the petitioner's consortium had not been short listed for participation in the further selection process as the Lead Consortium member viz., the petitioner did not meet the minimum financial criteria. This decision of the Ennore Port was also communicated to the petitioner in letter of Ennore Port dated 4.6.2003. In the said letter, it is specifically stated that the petitioner RFQ submission has indicated South India Corporation Limited to be the Lead Consortium Member in the consortium. As per Clarification issued vide Ennore Port's letter dated 28.11.2002,

"the Lead Consortium Member who has to contribute the maximum to the project should firstly satisfy the minimum financial criteria. Subject to the above, the Lead Consortium Member can nominate a Significant Consortium Member who should not contribute less than 26% of the equity for the purpose of evaluation of financial criteria at RFQ stage"

4. The above two communications are questioned basically on the ground that the decision of Ennore Port is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of its own documents. The clarificatory note issued by Ennore Port dated 28.11.2002 in Clause 1.4 is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the tender itself and the tender conditions cannot be changed by issuing clarification. Clause 7.4 of RFQ documents has been totally mis-interpreted by Ennore Port for not including the petitioner in the short list. As per Exhibit 6 of RFQ documents the terms and conditions of the tender the financial eligibility of the consortium should be considered in its entirety and in any event, the Portia Management Services Limited should be considered as entity with financial eligibility. Further, the Portia Management Services has 32% stake in the consortium which is more than the minimum 26% requirement and the petitioner had it been given opportunity, should have explained the above and satisfy the Ennore Port that the consortium satisfy clause 7.4 as well.

5. The Writ Petition is opposed by Ennore Port on the ground that the tender documents cannot be called in question and this Court would have no jurisdiction to review the tender conditions. The condition imposed in RFQ documents as to the financial ability is only with the object that the Lead Consortium Member should have the financial ability and such Lead Consortium Member alone is responsible in the event of violation of the conditions of the tender in future. The clarification is only a reiteration of Clause 7.4 of the tender condition. Even the said clarification was made with the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner having participated in the bid, cannot now question the clarification issued by Ennore Port.

6. In W.P.No.10781/2005, the petitioner has questioned the very tender notice itself published in Economic Times dated 19.10.2002. The petitioner has questioned the tender notice basically on the ground that when the tender process remained in its preliminary stages and during August,2004, the Ennore Port was seeking to induct outsiders, who had not even participated in the tender. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Page 1146 though a bid was made only by M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited, M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited, which has not submitted the bid, was allowed to participate in the tender. The Writ Petition is opposed on the ground that the tender documents were forwarded to M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited, Singapore by mistake as the bidder was also M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited, Singapore and the address of both the companies are one and the same. Though initially M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited, were allowed to submit tender documents, on coming to know the mistake in communication, M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited, were asked to submit tender documents. However, they requested to accept the RFQ documents submitted by M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited, hence the same were accepted. Infact, at later point of time, M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited, has also withdrawn the tender. In the light of the above developments, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive as on today.

7. One M/s Adani Exports Limited, Ahmedabad, the 5th respondent in W.P.No.10781/2005 who is also one of the bidder, has also adopted the stand of the Ennore Port and has pleaded that the Writ Petition should be dismissed as the 5th respondent's bid has not been so far considered in view of the pendency of the Writ Petitions and in view of the interim orders granted by this Court.

8. I have heard in detail Mr. P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S. Venkiteswaran, senior counsel appearing for the Ennore Port, Mr. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in W.P.No.10781/2005.

9. For disposal of rival contentions, this Court shall consider the scope of review in matter of tenders. Though series of judgments of the Supreme Court are on the point, the following few leading judgments on the issue alone are referred.

A) In Tata Cellular v. Union Of India. (1994(6)SCC 651), the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles.

(1)The modern 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. Page 1147 However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facets pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

C) In New Horizons Limited v. Union of India, , after referring to Tata Cellular case, the Supreme court has held that the Courts cannot review the conditions of tender. But, it was also held that the State in exercise of its various functions, is governed by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution which excludes arbitrariness in State action and requires the State to act fairly and reasonably. It was further held that the decision of the Court therefore insist that while dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and be in conformity with the standards or norms which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.

D) In AIR India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited, , the Supreme Court has held that while the State can choose its own method in fixing the conditions it should comply with the norms, standard and procedure and the decision should be on the basis of overall view of the transaction after weighing various relevant factors and having regard to commercial viability.

10. In matters of tender, the scope of judicial review is limited as it extends only to find out as to whether the tender Authority had acted arbitrarily and in disregard to fairness and reasonableness. What is reasonableness, has been explained in Associated Privincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948 (1) KB 223). The said principle is known as "Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness". In that case it was held that a decision of public authority is liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it.

Page 1148

11.On the above settled law, the facts of the case on hand must be considered. Bidding Company is defined as a company if the RFQ for the project is submitted by a single corporate entity. Bidding consortium is defined if the RFQ for the project is submitted jointly by more than one entity, then this group of entities shall be referred to as a Bidding Consortium. Each entity in the Bidding Consortium shall be referred to as a Consortium Member. In case of Bidding Consortium, the Lead Developer/Lead Consortium Member shall be that Consortium Member vested with the prime responsibility of developing the project. The Lead Consortium Member (including its Promoters and/or Affiliates in case they are also members of the Consortium and provided all these entities are corporate entities) shall necessarily make the maximum entity contribution in the project among the consortium members and this equity contribution shall not be less than 26%. Part VII of RFQ documents relates to "Eligibility criteria for the request for qualification".

12. There are two eligibility norms, Firstly in respect of minimum eligibility criteria for experience( Technical, Managerial, Operational, Commercial). The said clause reads as under:

The bidding company( or any of its Promoters/Affiliates/subsidiaries) or for a Bidding Consortium, any consortium Member having a minimum stake of 11% in the Bidding Consortium ( or any of its promoters/affiliates/ subsidiaries)should meet the following two eligibility criteria for experience and track record specified below, as on the last date for submission of the Request for Qualification. It is not necessary that both criteria be met by the same entity.

Handling experience of at least 2.0 million metric tones per annum of dry cargo in seaport operations in any of the last three financial years. The cargo could include dry bulk, break-bulk or containerized cargo.

And Successfully implemented, as an equity investor with not less than a 26% holding, an infrastruture/core sector project of project cost not less than Rs.300 crores.

Secondly, in respect of the minimum eligibility criteria for financial capability which reads as under;

The bidding company or any one of the promoters' or for a Bidding Consortium, the Lead Consortium Member of any one of its Promoters would be evaluated for financial capability specified below, as on the last date for submission of the Request for Qualification.

13. As far as the minimum eligibility criteria for technical, managerial, operational and commercial experience, the bidding company or the bidding consortium, or any member of the consortium having the minimum stake of 11% in the bidding company should meet the handling experience of at least 2.0 million metric tones per annum of dry cargo in seaport operations in any of the last three financial year and should have successfully implemented as an equity investor with not less than 26% holding an infrastructure/core sector project of project cost not less than Rs.300 crores.

Page 1149

14. Insofar as the experience as to the technical, managerial, operational and commercial, the two eligibilities are applied to the bidding companies and Bidding Consortium, and no different norms are fixed as the consortium or the member of the consortium or lead promoter also can satisfy the eligibility norms. In terms of the said clause, the eligibility norms could be satisfied either by a bidding consortium or by any member of the consortium and the only condition for such consortium member is that he should have the minimum stake of 11% in the bidding company. There is no dispute as to the minimum eligibility of the petitioner for experience as contemplated in clause 7.3.

15. The dispute is in respect of clause 7.4 relating to the minimum eligibility criteria for financial capability. In terms of the said clause, the financial capability would be evaluated for bidding company or any one of its promoters. However, insofar as the bidding consortium, the financial capability of a Lead consortium member or any one of its promoters would be evaluated. The grievance of the petitioner is that the refusal of the petitioner to include in the short list by mis interpreting the said clause is liable to be set aside. In support of the same, it is submitted that the financial capability in respect of bidding consortium can be evaluated on the basis of financial capability of Lead consortium member or any of its promoters. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the bidding consortium has the petitioner as a lead promoter and two other companies as its member viz., Portia Management Services Limited, a leading UK based company and Navyuga Engineering Company Limited Vizag. The petitioner and other two companies have equity in consortium at the rate of 36%, 32% and 32% respectively. The Portia Management Services has a Tangible Net Work of Rs.1155.53 in crores in the year 1999-2000, 1155.53 in the year 2000-2001 and Rs.1127.20 in the year 2001-2002. The financial eligibility of Portia Management Services could have been taken by the respondent at the time of short listing the bid of the petitioner. Based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court this Court would not be within its jurisdiction to review the conditions of tender. However, this Court is competent to go into the question as to whether the conditions have been strictly complied with and applied uniformly and in the said process, there is no arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Insofar as the minimum eligibility criteria for experience in technical, managerial, operational and commercial, the respondent had recognized such experience for a bidding company or any of its promoters/affiliates/subsidiaries. The same benefit has also been given to the bidding consortium as well whereby the experience of even the consortium member could be taken as the compliance of Clause 7.3. While coming to clause 7.4 as to the minimum eligibility criteria for financial capability, the said clause must be read in conjunction with clause 7.3. Under the said clause, the financial capability of a bidding company or any one of its promoters are accepted for evaluation and on the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that in terms of the 2nd limb of the clause 7.4 only the financial capability of the lead consortium member alone would be taken for evaluation. Whether eligibility norms contained in clause 7.4 as applied in the manner by which ought to have been applied is the further question for consideration. A perusal of the said Page 1150 clause, in my opinion, shows that in the case of evaluation of financial capability of bidding consortium, not only financial capability of lead consortium member would be taken but also the financial capability of any one of its promoters also can be taken into consideration. Of course, this clause is sought to be clarified in letter dated 28.11.2002 by fixing the financial para meter of Rs.150 crores net worth, Rs.300 crores of net tangible assets and Rs.25 crores as bridge financing capability. There is no change in the clause 7.4 of the tender documents and Clause 1.4 of the said letter is only a clarification without affecting the condition in Clause 7.4.

16. To find out the purport of clause 7.4 in relation to the financial capability of bidding consortium, useful reference can be made to the judgment New Horison Limited case referred to above. In that case, the eligibility as to the experience of the a joint venture company was considered. Their Lordships after a detailed discussion finally held that in a bid by joint venture company the experience of constituents of the joint venture company should be treated as its own experience. The said finding was rendered on consideration of the power of the Court to see through corporate veil to ascertain the true nature of the company. The doctrine of lifting the veil, piercing the veil or peeping or seeing through the veil is invoked when the corporate personality is found to be opposed to justice, convenience or interest of revenue. By applying the principles as Joint venture concept the Supreme Court in Para 26 has held as follows:

"Once it is held that NHL is a joint venture, as claimed by it in the tender, the experience of its various constituents namely, TPI, LMI and WML as well as IIPL had to be taken into consideration if the Tender Evaluation Committee had adopted the approach of a prudent businessman"

On the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that the consortium has three members including the petitioner and two other companies. There is also no dispute as to the financial capability in respect of tangible net worth, tangible assets and bridge financing capability of Portia Management Services Limited as could be seen as follows

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rupees in Crores 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Tangible Net 1155.53 1155.53 1127.20 Worth Tangible Assets 1209.95 1213.67 1118.33 Bridge Financing capability 374.24 389.9 447.3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

17. In terms of clause 7.4 even the financial capability of any one of the promoters can be taken into consideration. When once this conclusion is arrived, the impugned communication in refusing to short list the petitioner consortium on the ground that the petitioner, the lead consortium member has not satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria of financial capability cannot be sustained. As the consortium is more than one entity and each entity in the Consortium is a Consortium Member, they have common interest in the bid. Even when the Lead Developer/Lead Consortium Member is defined, Page 1151 the definition included its promoters and/or affiliates subject to the only condition that such promoters/or affiliates should have not less than 26% of equity contribution. In the event, the Consortium Member has equity contribution of not less than 26% his net worth, assets can also be taken into consideration. In my opinion, the decision of Ennore Port in excluding the financial capability of of the Portia Management Services Limited would be arbitrary and irrational apart from unreasonable. On the facts of the case, the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness should be made applicable. This would be in the interest of the revenue also. As against a project involving crores as on today, this correct is informed only the 5th respondent bid is kept alive and other bidders have withdrawn. No prejudice would be caused to the Ennore Port in allowing the Petitioners also by including in the Short list. Hence, the impugned communications dated 14.5.2003 and the consequential letter dated 4.6.2003 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, they are set aside. As a necessary corralary the petitioner's bid shall be considered with reference to the minimum eligibility criteria of financial capability of Portia Management Services Limited as the said member of consortium should be treated as a promoter as included in clause 7.4 in case of consortium company for evaluation.

18. Coming to Writ Petition No.10781/2005, the petitioner has questioned the decision of Ennore Port to allow one M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Limited to furnish tender documents, when it did not even bid. This challenge does not hold good as on today. After Ennore Port communicated the tender documents to M/s Leighton Contractors(Singapore) Private Limited instead M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Private Limited which was the bidder by mistake as the address of both the companies is one and the same. It requested M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited to submit tender documents. However, M/s Leighton Contractors (Asia) Private Limited had informed Ennore Port to accept the bid of M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited and the bid was also accepted. In law, Ennore Port which is only bound to consider the RFQ documents filed by the company and not by any outsider or the company which is not even bid. Therefore, I find every merit in the grievance of the petitioner that the 4th respondent ought not to have allowed M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore)Private Limited to submit the RFQ documents. Nevertheless, Mr. S. Venkiteswaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the Ennore Port during the course of arguments brought to my notice that the 4th respondent has withdrawn from the bid and in that view of the matter, the cause of action in the Writ Petition does not survive. The said submission of the learned senior counsel is acceptable and in view of the subsequent development, M/s Leighton Contractors (Singapore) Private Limited has withdrawn the bid, the issue need not be adjudicated and decided as it is only academic. Hence, no specific orders are necessary in the Writ Petition.

19. In view of the above, W.P.No.23950/2004 is allowed and W.P.No.10781/2005 is closed. No costs. Consequently, all connected W.P.M.Ps and W.V.M.P. are closed.

M/S South India Corp... v. M/S Ennore Port Limi...