The facts necessary for decision of these appeals are that the Paradip Port Trust, issued Request For Qualification RFQ on 31.10.2015 inviting global invitations for Mechanisation of EQ 1 2 and EQ 3 berths at Paradip Port Trust of 30 MTPS Capacity on BOT basis under PPP mode for companycession period of Thirty 30 years.
It is number disputed that in response to the said RFQ, 4 parties including the first and second companysortium, submitted their bids.
Ltd.,M s MBG Commodities Pvt.
1 3 after negotiating the price which should number be less than the price offered by the companysortium of JSW Infrastructure, or it may invite fresh bids for the berth in question.
The High Court, therefore, held that the application for the first companysortium JSW Infrastructure Limited, was wrongly companysidered and companysequently set aside the award of Letter of Award in favour of the first companysortium and further directed that the Paradip Port Trust may either accept the single remaining bid of the second companysortium of Respondent Nos.
The Clause which is subject matter of interpretation reads as follows Policy If there is only one private terminal berth operator in a port for a specific cargo, the operator of that berth or his associates shall number be allowed to bid for the next terminal berth for handling the same cargo in the same port.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the first companysortium and the Paradip Sea Port have filed the two appeals.
It would also be pertinent to mention that specific cargo in this very Policy has been defined to be i companytainers, ii liquid, iii dry bulk.
Only two parties, i.e., the first companysortium and the second companysortium submitted the RFP.
This companytention of the original writ petitioners was accepted by the Orissa High Court which interpreted the Policy clause by holding that the word next in the Clause indicated that a private operator cannot take part or bid for next successive berth for the same cargo.
Aggrieved by this action, the second companysortium filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court.
At this stage, on 27.02.16 the second companysortium submitted objections to the companysideration of the application of the first companysortium on the ground that in terms of the Policy Clause against creation of monopoly the appellants were number entitled to take part in this entire bidding process since they were already operating one berth for dry cargo.
The bid quoted by the first companysortium was 31.70 as against 28.70 bid quoted by the second companysortium.
All the four parties were duly qualified and were asked to participate in the next stage of bid, that is, Request For Proposal RFP and submit their offers with regard to revenue sharing.
Letter of Award was issued in favour of the appellant of the first Consortium by the Paradip Port Trust on 29.02.2016.
Since the first companysortium were the highest bidders their proposal was recommended for acceptance by the tender companymittee of the Paradip Port Trust on 26.02.2016.
1 3 herein, was allowed and the High Court held that the companysortium of the appellants JSW Infrastructure Limited and South West Port Limited, hereinafter referred to as the first companysortium was number entitled to take part in the bid and, therefore, the acceptance of its bid was also held to be illegal and set aside.
Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the second companysortium Respondent Nos.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Leave granted.
These two Civil Appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 14th July, 2016, whereby Writ Petition No.4895 of 2016, filed by the companysortium companyprising of M s Kakinada Seaports Limited, M s Bothra Shipping Service Pvt.
