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.;