were submitted, and in respect of the 4th partner, whose passport copy could not be enclosed, a police verification report was submitted. It is submitted, therefore, that all the necessary documents that were required to support the bid were submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner also satisfied the condition regarding value of work that had to be undertaken by a prospective bidder as stipulated in Appendix 'A' to the Notice Inviting Tenders. With specific reference to the appellate order that was impugned in the writ petitions, it is pointed out that inasmuch as the Appellate Authority, as also the tendering authority, had rejected the technical bids without assigning any specific reason, the decision of the said authorities was arbitrary, and in that context, a writ petition before this Court was maintainable. It is further pointed out that inasmuch as the petitioner was only questioning the legality of an order passed against him, there was no requirement of impleading the other bidders in the tender process, as parties to the writ petitions. On the merits of the order passed by the tendering authority and Appellate Authority, it is contended, with reference to documents produced along with the writ petitions, that the adverse remarks made against the Company namely, “M/s.Silppi Realtors & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.” were not justified and could not be legally sustained, although it is conceded that the Company itself did not take any steps to set aside the said adverse findings made against it by the MES.
