can rely upon the experience of the parent organisation for such contractual processes. Allegation made in para 15 of the chargesheet that L-1 bidder was not called for negotiations is refuted by the prosecution witness no.56 Kashyap Ojha in his statement dated 29.08.2006 wherein he states that he was present as a representative of M/s Adisons before the tender committee on 04.02.2004. Further, this party cannot be treated as L-1 bidder as it was conditional and therefore could not be taken forward. With regard to the charges of mobilisation advance it is submitted that it was a product of negotiations between parties. As per the prosecution case JUSCO was granted interest free advance of Rs. 70 lakhs, thereby causing a loss of interest amount of Rs. 700,002 and 90. But in view of the interest, there was a rebate negotiated with JUSCO which is 2.5% of the total of Rs. 700 crores which comes to Rs. 17.50 lakhs, which is more than the interest amount of Rs. 7 lakhs. This contrary to the prosecution story JUSCO did not get any monetary benefit by not paying interest on mobilisation advance. Furthermore, the decision of the tender committee was approved in two subsequent rounds of review by the building and works committee and the Board of Governors in their meetings dated 8.5.2004 and 30.5.2004. Mere irregularity is for noncompliance departmental codes, even if assumed would not be sufficient to warrant a court to completely ignore the multilayered process of review in the present case and question the award of tender. (2016) 12 SCC 273; (1996) 10 SCC 193;(2009) 8 SCC 617. As a matter of fact JUSCO had performed its contractual obligations and executed the works for which JUSCO has raised bail for the total amount of Rs. 5,24,40, out of which Rs2,74,65,989 is paid to JUSCO and the remaining payment of the executed work has been withheld by NIT due to registration of this case.
