SPML INFRA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Raghav Dev Garg for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 1 and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh for respondents 2 and 4. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally, without inviting a formal counter affidavit.

(2.) The petitioner, an incorporated Company, has preferred the instant writ petition being aggrieved by a communication dtd. 23/6/2021, issued by the fourth respondent, informing the petitioner-Company that it stands disqualified and precluded from participating in the tender process in future also, as it had furnished wrong information relating to its previous experience. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the second respondent to issue LOI, execute agreement and work orders in its favour, being the lowest bidder (L1).

(3.) The second respondent, i.e. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), issued a notice on 24/3/2021, inviting tenders for providing and fixing smart water meters with set up of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) in pilot project area with 10 years O&M. The last date for submission of bids was 30/3/2021. The petitioner-Company had submitted its bid on 26/3/2021. The tender process comprised of two stages, i.e. technical round and financial round. One of the requirements for prequalification of tender was submission of proof of previous experience. Clause 10 which stipulates nature of proof to be submitted is as follows: -