Appeals allowed, High Court to review eligibility under first tender notice.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The High Court was directed to re-examine RDS's eligibility under the first tender notice. If found ineligible, the writ petition would be dismissed, allowing RGPPL to proceed with the second tender process. If found eligible, RGPPL could issue a fresh tender notice under the original eligibility conditions. The High Court was asked to expedite the matter within four months, with parties bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition No.534 of 2011.
2. Alleged mala fides in the rejection of the tender and annulment of the tender process.
3. Validity of the eligibility conditions in the second tender notice.
4. Eligibility of the respondent under the first tender notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition No.534 of 2011:
The court examined whether Writ Petition No.534 of 2011 was maintainable given the withdrawal of Writ Petition No.8252 of 2010. The earlier petition challenged the rejection of the bid and annulment of the tender process, which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge exclusion from the fresh tender. The court concluded that the second petition was not maintainable insofar as it sought to re-agitate issues from the first petition. The scope of the new petition was limited to challenging the amended eligibility conditions in the second tender notice.

2. Alleged Mala Fides:
The court held that the issue of mala fides did not survive due to the conclusion on the maintainability of the second writ petition. Nevertheless, the court noted that allegations of mala fides require specific particulars and proof, which were not satisfactorily established in this case. It emphasized that administrative actions are presumed bona fide unless proven otherwise. The court found no evidence of malice in fact or law in the appellant's decision-making process and set aside the High Court's findings on mala fides.

3. Validity of the Eligibility Conditions in the Second Tender Notice:
The court addressed the modification in Clause 8.1.1.1 of the second tender notice, which RDS claimed unfairly excluded it. The High Court had found the modification unjustified. However, the appellant's counsel, Mr. Nariman, stated that RGPPL would not apply the modified clause and would revert to the original clause from the first tender notice. The court accepted this statement, making it unnecessary to examine the validity of the modified clause. The second tender process would proceed under the original eligibility conditions.

4. Eligibility of the Respondent Under the First Tender Notice:
The court examined whether RDS was eligible under the original Clause 8.1.1.1 of the first tender notice. The appellant had rejected RDS's bid on three grounds: the project length was insufficient, the project was executed as two separate projects, and RDS was not responsible for the entire scope of work. The High Court had relied on a concession attributed to the Additional Solicitor General, which was disputed. The court found that the High Court did not adequately address the eligibility issue on merits and remanded the matter for a fresh determination by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The High Court was directed to re-examine the eligibility of RDS under the first tender notice. If found ineligible, the writ petition would be dismissed, and RGPPL could proceed with the second tender process. If found eligible, RGPPL could issue a fresh tender notice under the original eligibility conditions. The High Court was requested to expedite the matter within four months. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

---