It was further urged that the scope of work for Dulanga Mines projects which was taken into companysideration by the respondent in evaluating the technical proposal of the petitioner as being number responsive had been wrongly understood.
Thereafter, placing reliance on Tata Cellular v. Union of India1 and Michigan Rubber India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.2, it came to hold that the decision taken by the owner was companyrect and did number adversely affect public interest but subserved the public purpose.
The stand of NTPC before the High Court was that the assessment by the Technical Committee was absolutely justified and the writ petitioner therein did number meet the QR and, therefore, was treated as number responsive.
The High Court referred to how tender documents that reflected the nature of mine operations, how blasting is an inherent part and drilling is differently understood in the sense that the appellant had understood.
On the basis of the said companymunications, the respondent formed an opinion that the bid of the appellant was technically number responsive.
The reason for arriving at the said companyclusion by the respondent was that the appellant did number have necessary experience of drilling for blasting purposes.
and number blasting or drilling for blasting purposes.
Being of this view, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
