THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT v. ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD AND 2 ORS

22) Mr. Sharma on behalf of the petitioners stated that the respondent AEGCL have violated the level playing field, changed the policy of selection criteria during the process of selection of the Consultancy Service and did not comply with the provisions of the RFP as prescribed. Mr. Sharma also submitted that the law is well settled that - where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that Page No.# 7/43 manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. 23) Petitioners contended that since the entire bidding process that had been initiated by changing the scoring criteria by the respondent Client AEGCL as can be seen from the various minutes from the records and as the terms of the RFP dated 07.03.2020 were not followed by the respondent AEGCL, therefore the entire process of bidding being bad in law and vitiated, should be declared as illegal and should be cancelled. 24) Petitioners placed a written note consisting of Inspection Report of the relevant file, Evaluations made by the committee on 27.08.2020, 15.09.2020, 16.09.2020, 21.09.2020, Evaluation Summary dated 19.09.2020, Minutes of the Meeting dated 19.09.2020 and RFP Evaluation Report of Consultancy Services submitted by the Funding Agency AIIB with regard to the petitioner and the respondent No.3, stating that they had copied those from the records on being asked to verify by the Court. 25) In support of his argument Mr. Sharma placed the following judgments: i) Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, ii) Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, iii) Shobikaa Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Central Medical Services Society, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 233, iv) Reliance Energy Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 1. v) Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622, vi) Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Ltd., reported in (2018) 5 SCC 462, vii) Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DDA, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180, viii) Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Limited Vs. DMRC Limited, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 288, ix) J.S. Yadav Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 570, x) Poonam Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779, xi) Maharastra State Road Transport Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) Appeal (Civil) 1942 of 2020, xii) Reliance Energy Limited and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Road, SC-Appeal (Civil) 3526 of 2007, xiii) Associates of Registration Plates Vs. Union of India and Others, 2005 (1) RAJ 95 (SC), xiv) Anupal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2019. Page No.# 8/43 26) Appearing on behalf of the AEGCL, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel after giving the details of the requirement of Project Management Consultancy as mandatory for the “Assam Intra State Transmission System Enhancement Project” being funded by external funding agency AIIB, it is placed that the AEGCL on

19.12.2019 floated an Expression of Interest (EOI) for Consulting Services for the aforesaid project where the last date of submission of tender was 05.02.2020. It is also stated that in pursuance of said EOI, twenty seven numbers of firms submitted their respective EOIs for the Consultancy Services for the said Project including the petitioners and the respondent No.3 and out of those, seven numbers of firms, including the petitioners and respondent No. 3 were shortlisted as they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. 27) It is stated that as per Clause 27.1 of Request for Proposal (RFP), the selection process was based on quality and cost based selection. With regard to those seven consultants on the basis of their detailed Combined Scores including Technical Score and Financial Score, assessed by the Bid Evaluation Committee, the respondent AEGCL on

02.11.2020 issued Notice of Award in favour of the respondent No.3 for Consultancy Service for the Project, since the respondent No.3 was found to have scored the highest combined scores and accordingly the contract was awarded to it. 28) It is also stated that after evaluation of the technical proposals, total marks scored by each of the seven consultants were notified on 28.09.2020 in the website of the AEGCL and was also informed individually to each of them in their respective e-mails as per Clause 23.2 of the RFP notifying that the financial proposals will be opened on 05.10.2020. 29) Respondent AEGCL contended that in spite of coming to know about its total Technical Scores and that of the other six consultants, including the respondent No. 3, on

28.09.2020 itself, the petitioners remained silent and even during the time of opening of the financial proposals of the seven short listed consultants on 05.10.2020, they did not ask for the detail Technical Scores, criteria and sub-criteria wise, although sufficient opportunities were given to all the seven consultants to raise their objections with regard to their Technical Scores, if any within seven days time from 28.09.2020, upto the date of opening of their financial proposals on 05.10.2020. Page No.# 9/43 30) It is also stated that as per Clause 23.5 of the RFP at the time of opening of financial proposals all participants were present, names of the consultants and their respective overall technical scores including the breakup scores were read aloud before all the consultants, where the AEGCL authority requested all the participants to inform if they have any objection regarding technical evaluation. 31) Mr. Mahanta pointed out that the petitioner got the second highest Technical Scores at 82.43, whereas the respondent No.3 got the third highest Technical Scores at 82.18 during the technical evaluation made by the expert committee. On 05.10.2020 during the opening of the financial proposals of the seven shortlisted consultants, who obtained 70 and more scores in their technical proposals, regardless of granting opportunity, including the authorised representative of the petitioner present during the opening of their financial proposals did not object or raise any objection with regard to their technical scores. Since there was no objection from those seven consultants with regard to their technical scores, their respective financial proposals were opened by the Client AEGCL on 05.10.2020 itself in presence of those seven consultants. 32) It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent AEGCL that though the respective technical scores obtained by each of the seven shortlisted bidders/ consultancies were notified on 28.09.2020 itself intimating further that their financial bids shall be opened on

05.10.2020, giving them seven clear days time, but only after opening of the financial bid on

05.10.2020 the petitioners for the first time on 06.10.2020 raised its objection regarding the technical scores obtained by it through its e-mail. 33) It is stated that Clause 35.1 of the RFP provides for making a Procurement related complaint that are detailed in the Bank’s Procurement Instructions for the recipients. Clause

5.2 of that policy deals with complaint received after the deadline for tender or proposal submission and before the Notification of Intention to Award. As per said clause, if the Recipients receive a complaint after the deadline of submission of the tender/proposal but before issuance of the Notification of Intention to Award, the Recipients are required to examine the complaints in consultation with the Bank, i.e., the funding agency concerned, where the Recipients only response to the substance of the complaint within three days after the commencement of the standstill period. Page No.# 10/43 34) Mr. Mahanta stated that in the case in hand after receipt of the letter dated

06.10.2020 of the petitioners by e-mail on 09.10.2020, the respondent AEGCL informed the former that as per Procurement Instruction of the Funding Agency AIIB and relevant clause of RFP, the AEGCL shall be able to provide response only after the issuance of Notification of Intention of Award to the successful consultant. It is also stated by Mr. Mahanta that on the basis of detailed combined scores of Technical and Financial as assessed by the bid evaluation committee, the authorities in the AEGCL on 13.10.2020 issued the Notification of Intention to Award to the respondent No.3 being the successful consultant in the procurement process. 35) Mr. Mahanta clarified that after completion of technical and financial evaluation, the AEGCL submitted the complete evaluation before the funding agency AIIB and after its due diligent examination of the report, the AIIB on 07.10.2020 accorded its approval of said evaluation report. It also stated that the AEGCL authority assessed the evaluation criteria of the tenderers on the basis of the declaration and documents furnished by each of the seven consultants and that there is no scope for self assessment as made by the petitioners. Though AEGCL brought the letter of the petitioners dated 15.10.2020 to the notice of the funding agency AIIB, but by its e-mail dated 17.10.2020, the said funding agency informed the AEGCL authority to dismiss the complaint of the petitioners being baseless, which was communicated to the petitioners on 20.10.2020. 36) Respondent AEGCL categorically stated that as per format annexed with the RFP for Notification of intention of Awards there is no requirement to provide reason of unsuccessfulness of the proposal if the combined score already reveals the reason of such unsuccessfulness, where the AEGCL had already informed the petitioners about the same on

20.10.2020. 37) It is also stated that in consultation with the AIIB, the AEGCL on 27.10.2020 sent a reply to the petitioners’ letter dated 26.10.2020 stating that as the AEGCL had already responded by e-mail dated 22.10.2020, there was nothing further to be added, therefore, the matter was treated as closed. 38) It is submitted by Mr. Mahanta that the entire tender process was evaluated by the AEGCL in a transparent and fair manner strictly complying with the RFP as well as the Page No.# 11/43 guidelines provided by the AIIB, following the criteria mentioned in Clause 21.2 of Section 2 of the RFP and Section 7 of the Terms of Reference by the expert committee in two layers and that the expert committee while evaluating the tenders never deviated from the criteria mentioned in the RFP, even while evaluating the Technical Proposal of the petitioners. 39) It is stated that as per Clause 21.2 of Section 2 of the RFP and Clause 4.2 of Section 7 of the Terms of Reference, the respondent authority on 12.06.2020 set the evaluation criteria, and the Technical Expert Committee consisting of technical experts in the relevant field, in two layers, i.e., Layer 1 and Layer 2, assessed the Technical Score of all the seven shortlisted bidders/consultants including the petitioners and respondent No.3, strictly in compliance with the evaluation criteria in conformity with the relevant Clauses of the RFP, scrutinising and analysing various technical aspect that are relevant for the project. The respondent AEGCL also stated that its expert committees on completion of the evaluation, as set on 12.06.2020 as per the criteria, forwarded the Report to the funding agency AIIB. Accordingly, after considering the matter, the said funding agency AIIB on 07.10.2020 accorded its approval of said evaluation report. 40) Mr. Mahanta stated that on the basis of the combined Technical and Financial Score of the bidders/shortlisted consultants, the respondent AEGCL issued the Notification of Intention to Award dated 13.10.2020 as well as the Award dated 02.11.2020 in favour of the respondent No.3 since out of the seven shortlisted consultants, it is the respondent No. 3 who got the highest combined Scores (Technical + Financial) after due evaluation made by the expert committee of AEGCL consisting of technical and financial experts, strictly following the RFP and the guidelines provided by the AIIB in that regard in a transparent manner. 41) It is stated that as per Clause 27.1 of the RFP the selection process has to be based upon quality and cost-based selection. As the respondent No.3 qualified as successful bidder obtaining highest combined score, the award was issued in its favour, after the approval of the funding agency AIIB. Mr. Mahanta stated that while granting the award to the respondent No.3 the respondent AEGCL did not act arbitrarily or in bias or in discrepancy or in mala fide and rather the entire act was done as per the Clauses of the RFP, where there was an unanimous decision of all the members of the two Layer Technical Committees and the decision of awarding the contract to the respondent No.3 was taken by the Layer-2 Page No.# 12/43 Committee, which is a high-level and final decision-making committee. 42) Although as per its self assessment, the petitioners claimed that its Technical Score should have been 58.76 instead of 49.83 as awarded by the expert committee of the respondent AEGCL, Mr. Mahanta submitted that such self assessment made by the bidder itself is not permissible and/or acceptable being not based on the criterion of the RFP. Mr. Mahanta also stated that such self assessment of Technical Score and claim of such higher Technical Score by the petitioner was of 06.10.2020, that too after the opening of the Financial Bids on 05.10.2020, which was received by the AEGCL through e-mail only on

09.10.2020. 43) With regard to ‘Debriefing’, Mr. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel for the AEGCL placed the provisions of Section 9 of the Notification of Intention to Award Form Serial No.3, which provides that – “Reason/s why your proposal was unsuccessful [Delete if the combined score already reveals the reason]” and also srl. No. 4 of said Section 9, which stipulates that – “How to request a debriefing [This applies only if your proposal was unsuccessful as stated under point (3) above]”, and submitted that from those provisions of Section 9 of the Notification of Intention to Award as well as the provisions specified in Clause 33 and 35 of the RFP, it is clear that ‘debriefing’ is to be done only when a bidder is technically not qualified during the selection process. Mr. Mahanta stated that with regard to the case in hand, ‘debriefing’ is not applicable to the petitioners, as it is a technically qualified/successful bidder secured the score of 82.430, much more than the required cut-off score of 70 to be a successful bidder in technical evaluation as per Clause 21.1 of the RFP. 44) Mr. Mahanta placed Clause 35.1 of the RFP that deals with Procurement related Complaints, which reads as – “The procedure for making a Procurement-related complaint are detailed in the Blank’s Procurement Instructions for Recipients (Annexure-IV). If a Consultant wishes to make a Procurement-related Complaint following these procedures, in writing (by the quickest means available, such as by e-mail or fax). 45) Mr. Mahanta also placed the Clause 4.8 of the Procurement Instruction of the recipient of AIIB that deals with Debriefing Unsuccessful Tenderers/Consultants by the Bank, which reads as – “If after notification of contract award, a tenderer or consultant has not Page No.# 13/43 received satisfactory explanation from the Recipient, including through a debriefing with the Recipient, as to why its tender or proposal was not successful, the tenderer or consultant may seek a meeting with the Bank. The purpose of such meeting is limited to discussing the tenderer’s or consultant’s tender or proposal, and not to reversing the Bank’s decision conveyed to the Recipient or to discuss the tender or proposal of other tenderers or consultants.” 46) Placing the relevant records in original before the Court Mr. Mahanta submitted that the written note consisting of Inspection Report of the relevant file, Evaluations, Evaluation Summary, Minutes of the Meeting and RFP Evaluation Report of Consultancy Services etc. submitted by the petitioners with regard to it and the respondent No.3, are incomplete and does not tally with the records of AEGCL. 47) Placing all the above Mr. Mahanta stated that the petitioner never approached the Bank for discussion as per said Clause 4.8 at any point of time, whereas the respondent AEGCL has followed all the procedures of Bank’s Procurement Instruction for Recipients as par Clause 35.1 of the RFP. 48) Mr. Mahanta submitted that the Assam Intra State Transmission System Enhancement Project is a time bound project and the time limit for completion of the whole project is only sixty months and that the project involves larger public interest. 49) Mr. Mahanta therefore, submitted that for the reasons above this writ petition should be dismissed. 50) In support of his argument Mr. Mahanta relied upon the following judgments: i) (2007) 14 SCC 517 - Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa. ii) (2020) 16 SCC 759 - Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. AMR Dev Prabha. iii) (2016) 8 SCC 622 - Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium). iv) (2018) 5 SCC 462 - Municipal Corporation, Ujjain Vs. BVG India Limited. v) 2020 SCC OnLine SC-1035 - Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers Vs. New J. K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors. vi) (2009) 1 SCC 180 - Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others. Page No.# 14/43 vii) (2022) 6 SCC 127 - N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others. 51) Mr. Mannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, stated that the entire evaluation process in selecting the bidder for the project involved with the case was duly monitored by the concerned funding agency AIIB. In spite of having full knowledge about it and being fully aware about the same since the petitioners have not made the AIIB, the concerned funding agency as a party respondent in the present proceeding which is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case in hand, Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that for that reason alone this writ petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. 52) To that extent Mr. Mannan, learned counsel placed all the annexures annexed by the petitioners in the writ petition to show that whether it is the Project Director of respondent AEGCL or the concerned Team of respondent AEGCL, all were only performing on behalf of the concerned funding agency AIIB and that the petitioners have communicated to the concerned Project Director of AEGCL, who acted for and on behalf of said AIIB. 53) Mr. Mannan stated that the claim of the petitioners that in not providing them their sub-criteria wise technical scores during opening of the technical bids being in violation of the provisions of the RFP and in selecting the respondent No. 3 for the project involved in the case vitiates the entire selection process in selecting the bidder, is not tenable in the eye of law, since the petitioners failed to make the concerned funding agency AIIB as a party respondent in the present writ petition, being a necessary party of the case as it looked after the entire evaluation process in selecting the bidder. Therefore, on behalf of the respondent No.3, it is submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. 54) It is stated that that after opening the financial proposals of the seven technically successful consultants, including the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 on 05.10.2020 by following the provisions of the RFP, the respondent AEGCL found the respondent No.3 to be the successful L-1 Bidder in the QCBS process of evaluation and the same was approved by the concerned funding Bank AIIB. Accordingly, the respondent AEGCL on 13.10.2020 issued the Notification of Intention to Award in favour of the respondent No.3 and further, on

02.11.2020 awarded the contract of Consultancy Service for the Project Implementation and Page No.# 15/43 Management Support to it. Mr. Mannan, learned counsel thus placed before the Court that after more than two months of issuance of said Notification of Intention to Award dated

13.10.2020 to the respondent No. 3, the petitioners on 21.12.2020 have preferred the present writ petition challenging the impugned award in favour of the said respondent that too, without any justifiable ground of delay. 55) Mr. Mannan, submitted that non-providing of sub-criteria wise technical scores is of no consequences as none of the seven shortlisted technically responsive consultants/bidders, including the petitioners, were provided with such sub-criteria wise technical scores, except the total technical scores obtained by each of those seven shortlisted technically responsive bidders out of total score of hundred, wherein petitioners obtained 82.43 being the second highest scores above the respondent No. 3. 56) Mr. Mannan contended that the expert committee has given higher marks to the petitioners in technical scores than the respondent No. 3, but in the combined scores under QCBS process, i.e., technical + financial, the respondent No. 3 came out as the successful consultant/bidder amongst the seven shortlisted technically responsive consultants/bidders, where the financial bid of the respondent No. 3 is about four crores less than the petitioners. 57) Mr. Mannan stated that it is not the case of the petitioners that only they were not provided with the sub-criteria wise technical scores and therefore, the question of malafide or discrimination against the petitioners by the respondent AEGCL does not arise. 58) It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the respondent authorities in the AEGCL vide Notice No. AEGCL/MD/AIIB/PMC/Part-I/ Extn_Evl/08 dated 28.09.2020 informed all the seven “Technically responsive Consultants/Bidders” about their overall Technical Scores out of 100 (hundred) obtained by each of them, including the petitioners as well as the respondent No.3. It is stated that in the said Notice dated 28.09.2020, the respondent AEGCL also notified all the seven technically responsive consultants including the petitioners and the respondent No.3 that their financial proposals will be opened on

05.10.2020 at 12:00 Hrs in the conference room of the Managing Director of AEGCL in the 1st Floor of Bijulee Bhawan at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati-781001. These are being matter of records and that overall technical scores were being accepted by all the seven technically responsive Page No.# 16/43 consultants, not raising any objections with regard to it, including the petitioners; Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that only after opening of the financial proposals of those seven consultants on 05.10.2020, when it was found that as per QCBS evaluation process after combined Scores of technical and financial scores, the respondent No.3 stood at rank No.1, the petitioners, for the first time, in its e-mail dated

06.10.2020 raised the objection in not providing sub-criteria wise technical score to them, requesting the respondent AEGCL to provide them with the sub-criteria wise/break-up of their technical scores. 59) The respondent No. 3 stated that all along, since 28.09.2020, i.e., the date when the respondent AEGCL informed the technically responsive seven consultants with their respective total technical scores out of 100, the petitioners remained silent in respect of sub-criteria wise/break-up of their technical scores up to 05.10.2020, i.e., the date of opening of the financial proposals of the technically responsive consultants. Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 therefore stated that such act of the petitioners clearly demonstrate that they along with all other consultants have accepted the technical and financial scores as declared by the respondent AEGCL and that the petitioners raised such objection for the first time only after opening of the financial bids as it did not come out as the winning bidder/consultant. 60) Mr. Mannan stated that the RFP concerned does not provide for self evaluation of technical and/or financial scores and such self-evaluation of technical scores made by the petitioners themselves cannot be a basis to raise the issue of unfair practice against the respondent AEGCL. 61) Mr. Mannan placed before the Court that besides Clause 21.1 of the ITC to the RFP, the evaluation is also guided by various factors mentioned in the Forms TECH-2 to TECH-6 of the Technical Proposal-Standard Form, Section-7 Terms of Reference, Minutes of Meeting of pre-bid clarification etc. 62) Mr. Mannan also stated that Clause 21.1 of the Data Sheet defines ‘Criteria and weightage’, that provides the guidelines on Sub-Criteria, but it does not prescribe for any weightage and rather specifies that evaluation and corresponding weightage are to be Page No.# 17/43 finalized by the evaluation committee in accordance with the sub-criterias’ as provided in the RFP. 63) Mr. Mannan on behalf of respondent No. 3 stated that from the RFP itself it can be seen that the debriefing is done when the consultant is technically not qualified in the selection process. It is stated that if the petitioners were not satisfied with their technical scores, it was their duty to raise the issue when the respondent AEGCL gave opportunities to all the seven consultants, including the petitioners, after declaring the overall technical scores out of 100 on 28.09.2020, where they had time up to 05.10.2020 till the opening of their financial proposals. 64) Mr. Mannan stated that had the petitioners were aggrieved being concerned with their technical scores out of hundred, they should have raised the issue at that stage, before opening of the financial proposals of those seven technically responsive consultants, including petitioners’ financial proposal and therefore, the issue of the sub-criteria wise score in their technical proposal, after opening of the financial proposals of the seven technically responsive consultants raised by the petitioners clearly reflects that the same is an afterthought. 65) Placing the complaint of the petitioners dated 27.10.2020, Mr. Mannan, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish any such serious illegalities committed by the respondent ACEGCL in awarding scores, except raising the issue of not mentioning the scores criteria and sub-criteria wise with regard to their technical proposal, which the petitioners themselves have failed to raise and act in due and relevant period, i.e., by raising the issues prior to the opening of the financial proposals on the notified date on

05.10.2020. 66) Mr. Mannan, learned counsel pointed out that even if the break up score of criteria and sub-criteria wise would have been provided, then also the total technical scores would have remained the same and that would not have altered the outcome of the technical evaluation made by the evaluation committee of the respondent AEGCL. It is stated that the petitioners have filed the complaint only to harass the respondent No.3 and to stall the project of public importance and to disrupt the process of award of contract awarded by the respondent AEGCL in favour of the respondent No. 3 in a fair and transparent manner. Page No.# 18/43 67) Mr. Mannan, stated that from the procurement related complaint and debriefing, their timing etc. made by the petitioners it can be seen that they are not concerned with the financial evaluation but with the technical evaluation that too on the basis of their self assessment and therefore, question of considerations of such complaint or debriefing made by the petitioners on their self assessment cannot arise. 68) Placing all the materials Mr. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 stated that the respondent AEGCL acted in accordance with the provisions of the RFP in a fair and transparent manner and issued the Notice of Award to the respondent No. 3, who is the successful bidder in the QCBS process and that there was no unfairness in the process. 69) It is also submitted by Mr. Mannan that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with delay and without making the concerned funding agency AIIB as party respondent. Mr. Mannan placed that there is no iota of public interest in the writ petition and involves only private interest. He further stated that the petitioners failed to place as to how the minor deviation, as claimed by it, caused favouritism, malafide or discrepancies in favour of the respondent No. 3. 70) Mr. Mannan stated that as the respondent AEGCL had issued the Award of Contract to the respondent No.3 on 17.11.2020 and thereafter, the said respondent had entered into a binding contract agreement with the respondent AEGCL on 02.12.2020 and the said Consultant, i.e., respondent No. 3 had already commenced mobilization on 15.12.2020 itself; therefore, this writ petition preferred by the petitioners should be dismissed. 71) Mr. Mannan in support of his arguments placed the following judgments: i) (2009) 1 SCC 768 - Tridip Kumar Dingal Vs. State of West Bengal. ii) (1984) 4 SCC 251 - Prabodh Verma Vs. State of U.P. iii) (2011) 6 SCC 570 - J.S. Yadav Vs. State of U.P. iv) (2016) 2 SCC 779 - Poonam Vs. State of U.P. v) (2007) 14 SCC 517 - Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa. vi) (2014) 11 SCC 288 - Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Limited Vs. DMRC Limited. vii) (2016) 8 SCC 622 - Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium). viii) (2016) 16 SCC 233 - Shobikaa Impex (P) Limited Vs. Central Medical Services Page No.# 19/43 Society. ix) (2020) 16 SCC 489 - Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India. x) (2020) 16 SCC 759 - Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. AMR Dev Prabha. xi) 2020 SCC OnLine SC-1035 - Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers Vs. New J. K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors. xii) 2020 SCC OnLine SC-301 - Utkal Suppliers Vs. Maa Kanak Durga Enterprises. xiii) (2022) 6 SCC 127 - N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others. 72) Placing the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Prabodh Verma