Amitava Roy JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The dissension centers around the exposition of an eligibility norm engrafted in the tender conditions qua a prestigious project with global participation. The Appellant stands disqualified by the Respondent on the touchstone of its perception of the relevant qualifying criterion as endorsed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2016 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 18439 of 2016, thus propelling it to this Court for redress.
2. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior Counsel for the Respondent.
3. The pleaded facts though encompass various facets, those having a direct bearing on the issue raised, only would be alluded to.
4. The Appellant-corporation has introduced itself to be an amalgam of M/s. CSR Corporation Ltd. and M/s. CNR Corporation Ltd., both claimed to be the world's largest and oldest suppliers of rail transport equipments with most complete product lines and leading technologies with their business activities enfolding R&D design, manufacture, repair, sale, lease and technical services for railway rolling stock, EMUs, metro coaches, urban rail transit vehicles, engineering machinery, consulting services etc. along with several subsidiaries under their full control. On 09.03.2015, these two entities namely; M/s. CSR Corporation Ltd. and M/s. CNR Corporation Ltd. got merged after securing the approval of the concerned state authorities, as a result whereof, all assets of these two integrant corporations, together with liabilities, businesses, qualifications, staff, contracts along with all rights and obligations stood transferred to the Appellant-corporation w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Following such assimilation, the Appellant-corporation was, as a joint stock limited company incorporated in the Peoples Republic of China with limited liability and owned and controlled by the Chinese Central Government. As a consequence of such merger, the subsidiaries of M/s. CSR. Corporation Ltd. and M/s. CNR. Corporation Ltd., became the subsidiaries of the Appellant-corporation and their names were changed as well. According to the Appellant, thereafter it successfully participated and was awarded various international contracts, based on the experience of its subsidiary companies.
5. On 15.01.2016, the Respondent company (hereinafter to be referred to also as "MEGA") invited tenders/bids for the project "Design, manufacture, supply, installation, testing, commissioning of 96 Nos. of standard gauge cars and training of personnel" and organized a pre-bid meeting, amongst others on 12.03.2016 inviting all prospective bidders. The last date for submission of the bids was eventually fixed on 25.05.2016.
6. As per the tender conditions, the offer was to be made in three envelopes, to be submitted simultaneously, as hereunder:
(i) First Envelope called-"Initial Filter-cum-Qualification Requirement Bid".
(ii) Second Envelope-"Technical Bid"
(iii) Third Envelope-"Price Bid"
7. In response to the notice inviting tender, the Appellant and three others namely; (i) Consortium of Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. & Bombardier Transportation GmbH; (ii) M/s. Hyundai Rotem Company (HRC) and (iii) Consortium of Alstom ........