- (1.) The common grievance in all the writ petitions is that the petitioner had to participate in an e-tender process in the capacity of a partnership firm, on the basis of previous credentials in terms of the notice inviting tender, the previous work having been completed by the petitioner no.1 as a constituent of a joint venture. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the matter argues that as per the terms of the notice inviting tender, in particular Clauses 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) and the note below Clause 7(1)(a), it will be evident that the previous work of the petitioner in the capacity of a constituent of a joint venture ought to be given credit to, for the purpose of accepting the bid of the present petitioner no. 1 in its individual capacity as a partnership firm. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this context, relies on a previous purported agreement of joint venture annexed as Annexure-P4 to the instant writ petition, the existence of which is doubted on behalf of the respondent, wherefrom it is evident that the present petitioner no.1, a partnership firm, was the principle constituent of the said joint venture inasmuch as the present petitioner no.1 was primarily entrusted not only with the performance of the entire works but was in charge of 97% of the payment of the gross value of the contract amount for the work awarded to the joint venture. A miniscule 3 % was paid by the other constituent of the said previous joint venture as per the joint venture agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner next places reliance on certain documents annexed to the present writ petition, which apparently show that the previous work, in the capacity of a constituent of the joint venture, was completed by the present petitioner, to the full satisfaction of the South Eastern Railway, which had allocated the work to the joint venture. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that if Clauses 7(1)(a) and its accompanying note is taken conjointly with Clause 7(1)(b) of the notice inviting tender, it would be evident that the terms of the said notice contemplated, within its purview, individual entities of joint ventures being permitted to participate in the bid process on the credentials of the work previously done by the joint venture. It is even pointed out that the terms contained in Clauses 7(1)(b) were consciously introduced and a distinction was brought in between the amounts put to tender pertaining to individual entities of joint ventures and other bidders. In case of the former, the aggregate had to be at least 60% of the amount put to tender for which the tender is invited, whereas for the latter, only 30% of the amount would suffice. As such, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said provisions and terms of the notice inviting tender make it evident that the petitioner no. 1 is entitled to participate in the tender process, which is going to be held at 4 p.m. today, on the basis of the credentials of the previous joint venture, of which it was a constituent. However, the respondents, in reply to a query of the bidders in connection with a pre-bid meeting held on September 6, 2019, indicated in the reply to the petitioner's question, as to whether individual bidders can utilize the credentials of joint venture, in the negative. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging such negative reply and the refusal of the contesting respondents to lend credence to the petitioner no.1/partnership firm in its individual capacity as a bidder on the basis of its previous work done as a component of a joint venture. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities in the various matters opposed the contentions of the petitioners on several aspects. The first ground of opposition taken is that, it is evident from the reply to the query of the bidders that the bidder's query was as to whether an individual bidder can utilize credentials of a joint venture. It is argued that the expression 'individual' in the query shows that the individual partners of the petitioner no.1 individually sought to participate in the bid, which cannot be permitted and is not covered by the terms of either the agreement or the judgments cited by the parties, which will be narrated later on. The other ground of opposition was that the petitioner, in the writ petitions, averred in various paragraphs that the completed work, credentials of which the petitioners want to rely on, was executed by the petitioner no.1 in the capacity of a principal contractor and the other constituent of the joint venture was treated to be a sub-contractor. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that such stand taken by the petitioner, affirmed to be true to their knowledge, would at best invoke Clauses 7(1)(a) and the note given thereunder. It is further argued on behalf of the respondents that a similar stand is reflected from the prayers of the writ petitions as well. However, it is argued, that such pleadings and prayer are not tenable in the eye of law as the said clause is not applicable to the petitioner no. 1. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the petitioners relied on two judgments, the first being New Horizons Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 and the second being that of Ganpati RV-Travelleres Alegria Track Private Limited Vs. Union of India and another reported at (2009) 1 SCC 589. The said judgments were relied on by the petitioner for the proposition that the court has to pierce the corporate veil in certain cases and look into the real persons who are responsible for executing the previous work on the basis of the credentials of which even a reconstituted entity may seek to participate in a subsequent tender. It was held in the said judgments that the credentials are to be examined from a commercial point of view, giving precedence to the persons who are in control and the persons behind the concern, for the purpose of ascertaining past experience, and not merely looking at the superficial name or constitution of the entities involved. In controverting the arguments of the petitioner on the basis of such cited judgments, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the factual scenario in the reported judgments were different from the present case. In the judgment of being New Horizons Limited (supra), which was plinth of the second cited judgment, it is evident that the same was in respect of tender being submitted in the name of a partnership firm, whereas the previous work was done by one of the partners, as well as that of a company previously executing a work, having been re-organized to form a new company. As such, the present case being entirely different from the reported cases, inasmuch as the petitioners seek to participate in the tender process in their individual capacities in the present case, the question of piercing or lifting the corporate veil does not apply at all. Upon going through the materials-on-record and giving due consideration to the arguments of the parties, it is seen that the pivots of the present case are the provisions as enumerated in Clause 7(1)(a) and its accompanying note and Clause 7(1)(b) of the Notice Inviting e-Tender. A close scrutiny of Clause 7(1)(b), which has been sought on behalf of the respondent authorities to be related to Clause 7(1)(a) and its corresponding note, indicates that sub-clause (b) refers to gross notional amount calculated from the Credential Certificate (CC) uploaded as the PQ Credential of a single similar work stated in Clause 7(1)(a) thereinabove and completed within immediate minimum five preceding financial years from the date of the e-NIT. Taken by its very letters, the said provision does not refer to the note accompanying sub Clause (a) of Clause 7(1) but to the substantive body of sub-clause (a). Clause 7itself pertains to pre- qualification (PQ) eligibility criteria. The said clause begins with the pre-face: a Pre-Qualification (PQ) of a contractor/bidder based on one single 100% completed work contract and financial capacity achieved within the zone of last five financial years will be determined as per Rules stated thereinbelow. The first rule, as embodied in Clause 7(1)(a), was that the gross value of the work submitted as PQ credential as per CC of similar nature completed during the current financial year before the date of publishing of the e-NIT or within the preceding five FY (financial years) would be multiplied by the following factors to take care of the inflationary effects to arrive at the gross notional amount. Immediately following the said statement, a chart was given, with three columns indicating the year, description and multiplying factor to arrive at gross notional amount, respectively. The note beneath the said chart referred to certain sub-sets of the entire gamut of Clause 7(1)(a), pertaining to cases of certain types, which included those of principal contractors and sub- contractors. However, sub clause (b) of Clause 7(1) does not at all refer to the said limited aspect embodied in the note below sub clause (a), but refers to the gross notional amount calculated from the CC as per the PQ Credential of single similar work, which has been stated in the body of Clause 7(1)(a) itself. As such, even though the petitioner no.1 could not be construed as a principal contractor in respect of its previous joint venture, the applicability of sub Clause (b) of Clause 7(1) to the petitioner no.1 cannot be precluded on the ground that the same was related only to the note given under Clause 7(1)(a). Sub clause (b) is independent in its operation from the note given under Clause 7(1)(a) and only derives inspiration from the substantive provision of the first portion of sub Clause (a). If the entire writ petitions and their pleadings are considered in a comprehensive way to attribute some meaning to the writ petitions, it would be seen that the pleadings in the writ petitions were not confined to those pertaining only to sub clause 7(1)(a) of the NIT but also referred to and argued on sub clause (b) of Clause 7(1) of the same. Even if the prayers are taken meaningfully in conjunction with each other, those could not confine the scope of relief to be granted to the petitioner, since the powers of the writ court to mould reliefs is far wider than a conventional civil court. A perusal of sub cause (b) would make it evident that the same envisaged credentials of joint ventures, where CC of individual entities of the joint ventures was to be considered, in case of the sum of gross notional value of work in respect of the CC of individual entities for works of similar nature (one for each entity), the aggregate had to be at least 60% of the amount put to tender, as opposed to other ordinary bidders, who had 30% as their limit of percentage. This provision makes it clear as daylight that the terms of the NIT also took within its fold individual constituents of previous joint ventures, who could verify their credentials in works completed as constituents of the joint ventures previously and double the percentage was imposed on such individual constituents, obviously because it was construed in the said sub Clause 7(1)(b) that the individuals would have to prove double the credential in their capacity of individual juristic entities than as part of a joint venture with others. In the present case, the petitioner, at least prima facie, more than fulfills such credentials, since the premise of Clause 7(1)(b) in distinguishing between 30% and 60% is that the previous joint venture was on an equal footing between its constituents, which is basic logic. However, taking the present case, the writ petitioner worked and contributed 97% in the previous work completed, as a constituent of the joint venture, as opposed to the other constituent of the said joint venture, and the value of the previous work was not merely 60% but double the total amount of the valuation of the present job in question. As such, the petitioner prima facie is more than qualified for participating in the bid. As far as the argument as to the petitioner having come up as an individual is concerned, the concept of 'individual' is not confined to biological entities but also takes into account juristic entities, who may also operate as individual entities, at least as far as commercial agreements are concerned. As such, the query of the petitioner no.1, which has been attacked on the ground that it was made in the capacity of an individual as in the personal sense, is easily refuted by the query itself, which shows that M/s. Radhanath Bhunia and Sons, being the petitioner no.1-partnership firm, made the query as to whether an individual bidder (which term, obviously, includes juristic entities and not merely biological persons) can utilize the credentials of the joint venture. The expression 'individual', in the present context, has to be read as one of the constituents of the previous joint venture and not as a biological person as argued on behalf of the respondents. Moreover, in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as even in a civil suit, a plain and meaningful reading of the writ petition and/or the plaint, as the case may, be has to be undertaken to construe the actual grievances of the petitioners and the relief sought for. Since the court has the power to grant relief by moulding the reliefs claimed in a case where it is necessary, individual and stray paragraphs cannot be culled out from the writ petition, thereby adopting a hyper-technical and restricted approach contrary to the very premise of the writ remedies, as enshrined in the Constitutional vision of India. As such, in the present case, the petitioner is perfectly justified in arguing that Clause 7(1)(b), read conjointly with the other terms and conditions of the concerned e-NITs, the terms of all of which are same, has to give credit to a constituent of a previous joint venture which completed a previous work within the contemplation of the terms and conditions of the NIT, as a valid bidder, on the credentials of the said joint venture. In such circumstances, W.P. 20102(W) of 2019, W.P. 689(W) of 2020 and W.P. 690(W) of 2020 are allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the communication made by the respondents, negativing the request of the petitioner to participate in the bids in question. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to participate in the bids in all the matters before this court, regarding which submission of papers are to be completed by 4 p.m. today. It would be open to the respondents to consider such bid as valid bids and the said bid cannot be turned down by the respondents merely on the ground that the petitioner no.1 cannot rely on its credentials as the constituent of a previous joint venture which had completed a work, of course, which has to come within the contemplation of the terms of the NIT. It is further made clear that it will be open to the respondents to consider the bids of the petitioner no.1 along with other bidders, and to accept the highest bid which is in consonance with the terms of the NIT, even otherwise than the contentions decided in the present writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. The parties are to act on the communication of the advocates on the basis of the order passed in open court today. Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities ;