M/S Bhardwaj Construction vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3079 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5093 of 2019
     ======================================================

M/s Bhardwaj Construction through its Partner Kamlesh Kumar, aged about 41 years (Male), Son of Ramashray Singh, Resident of 286, A.P. Colony, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Engineer-in- Chief, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer, Sorth Bihar Wing, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Patna.

6. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Hilsa.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha SC 26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY CAV JUDGMENT Date : 06-07-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed the instant writ application

praying therein for quashing the order contained in memo no.

1692 dated 26.2.2019 by the Departmental Tender Committee,

Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna whereby the tender

bearing no. OPRMC 02/01 with respect to the work namely

long term output and performance based road assets

maintenance work for the roads under package no. Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

40A/OPRMC-H/Hilsa has been cancelled and a direction for

retender has been given to the Chief Engineer, South Bihar

Wing, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

The case of the petitioner is that a notice inviting tender

(hereinafter referred to as 'the NIT') bearing NIT no. -CE

(South)/RCD/OPRMC-02/01 dated 26.11.2018 was issued by

the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar with

respect to long term output and performance based road assets

maintenance work for the roads under package no.

40A/OPRMC-H/Hilsa. As per the the NIT the last date for

uploading document by the bidder was 26.12.2018, the technical

bid was to be opened on 28.12.2018 at 1530 hours and the final

bid on 4.1.2019 at 1700 hours. The period of completion of the

work was seven years and the estimated cost value was Rs.

9251.4584 lacs.

It is the case of the petitioner that being interested in the

work and having requisite qualification, he submitted his bid

document as required under the NIT along with all supporting

documents, certificates and earnest money. Thereafter, on the

scheduled date and time the technical bid of the bidders as also

of the petitioner were opened and the petitioner and four other

bidders were declared successful by order dated 16.1.2019 after Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

the technical bid was evaluated by the Departmental Tender

Committee. One Ramjee Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd who had

also succeeded in the above technical bid filed a complaint

before the technical bid evaluation committee for cancellation of

the tender. On 26.2.2019 the Departmental Tender Committee

after considering the recommendation of the above Technical

Bid Evaluation Committee accepted the recommendation

regarding rejection of the above complaint filed by Ramjee

Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd, but gave direction to the Chief

Engineer to retender the work. It is against this order dated

26.2.2019 of the Departmental Tender Committee that the

petitioner has preferred the instant writ application for the

reliefs stated above.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as

per the NIT the technical bid was opened on 28.12.2018

wherein the petitioner and four other bidders were declared

successful. By order dated 16.1.2019 the Departmental

Technical Bid Committee observed that if any objections are

received by 4 pm on 21.1.2019 (wrongly printed as 21.1.2017),

then the Chief Engineer, South Bihar Wing would once again

call the meeting of the Technical Bid Committee wherein final

decision would be taken. It was observed that in case no Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

objection was received by the said date, the financial bid would

be opened and the Chief Engineer would place the same before

the Departmental Bid Committee with his recommendations. No

objection was received by the cut of date of 21.1.2019 and the

financial bid was opened on 21.1.2019. It was on 24.1.2019 that

an objection was filed by one Ramjee Singh Construction Pvt.

Ltd. i.e. 3 days after opening of the financial bid and which has

led to passing of the impugned order. It is further submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the Model Bidding

Document (MBD in short) issued by the Road Construction

Department, Government of Bihar contains the Instructions to

Bidders (ITB in short). Clause 26.1 thereof provides that the

employer shall correct arithmetical errors and if there is any

discrepancy between the unit price and the total price that is

obtained by multiplying the unit price and the quantity, the Unit

price shall prevail. Similarly, an error in a total corresponding to

the addition or subtraction of sub-totals, the sub-total shall

prevail and if there is a discrepancy between the words and

figures the amount in words shall prevail. With respect to

evaluation of bids the relevant Clause 27.1 and 27.2(a) relied

on behalf of the petitioner are being quoted herein below for

ready reference :-

Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

"Evaluation of Bids

27. 1 The Employer shall use the criteria and methodologies listed in this Clause.

No other evaluation criteria or methodologies shall be permitted.

27.2 To evaluate a bid, the Employer shall consider the following :

(a) the bid price, excluding Provisional Sums.

.........................................." It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the MBD provides for provisional sums which means a sum

included in the contract for use in emergency works and

contingencies when authorized by the employer. Clause 27.2 of

the ITB categorically provides that the employer shall consider

the bid price excluding the provisional sums. However, by

mistake the Executive Engineer while considering/totaling the

different amounts bid by the petitioner and four others added the

contingency/provisional amount in the total. It was submitted

that although the same was in violation of Clause 27.2(a) of the

ITB, nevertheless from perusal of the chart of financial bid it

would transpire that the Executive Engineer, Road Division,

RCD, Hilsa by his note dated 23.1.2019 (in Annexure-B series

to the 2nd supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents)

recommended for approval of grant of tender in favour of the Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

petitioner being the first lowest bidder, and this was done

excluding the provisional/contingency sum. The said

recommendation of the Executive Engineer was approved by the

Superintending Engineer and the financial bid was forwarded

for necessary action. It was thus, submitted by learned counsel

for the petitioner that even if it is taken that a mistake was

committed while preparation of chart and the provisional sum

had been included in the bid, as the said provisional sum had

been excluded in accordance with the Clause 27.2(a) of the ITB,

recommendation had rightly been made in favour of the

petitioner and thus, the respondent authorities have committed

an error in coming out with the impugned order dated 26.2.2019

cancelling the bid and directing the Chief Engineer to proceed

for re-tender. It is submitted that the order impugned dated

26.2.2019 be quashed and the petitioner being the lowest

tenderer having bid the lowest, a direction be issued to the

respondents to allot the work in favour of the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied on

the judgment in the case of Tata Cellular vs. the Union of India

(AIR 1996 SC 11) and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs. Radhey Shyam

Sahu and others [(1999) 6 SCC 464].

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

As per the case of the respondents, in the year 2013, the Road

Construction Department of Government of Bihar launched a

new concept of Road Assets, Management and Maintenance

based Programme known as 'long term output and performance

based road assets maintenance contract' (OPRMC in short).

After completion of first phase of 5 years, tenders were invited

for second phase of OPRMC II and under Annexure -1 tender

was invited for package no. 40A pertaining to roads under Road

Division Hilsa. The OPRMC consists of four components of

management of service i.e. ordinary maintenance service (OM),

initial rectification works (IR), periodic maintenance work (PM)

and minor improvement work (MI). Estimated cost of each of

the four components were mentioned in the template. Besides

the four components mentioned in Schedules 1 to 4, Schedule 5

contains provisional sums under two heads i.e. (a) emergency

works and (b) contingency works. The bidders were required to

provide their financial offer for the four components of service.

As per Clause 27.2(a) of the ITB the employer was to evaluate

the bid considering the bid price and excluding the provisional

sums. The provisional sum under contingency head was part of

Schedule 5. Inadvertently the different rates quoted by the

bidders for contingency work were incorporated in Schedule 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

as well along with other items of minor improvement work

(MI). The incorporation of the provisional sum of contingency

in Schedule 4 resulted in duplication of items as the same was

already incorporated in Schedule 5. This was an error in

financial bid sheet and as per the case of the respondents it

vitiated the tender in question. The same could not have been

corrected under the provisions of Clause 26.1 of the ITB

treating it to be an arithmetical error. There being no other

provision of making appropriate corrections in the bid

document, on the same coming to the notice of the

Departmental Tender Committee, the Committee rightly took a

decision and by its order dated 26.2.2019 proceeded to cancel

the tender itself and has rightly directed the Chief Engineer,

South Bihar Wing to take steps for re-tender. It is submitted by

learned counsel for the respondents that there is no illegality in

the order under challenge in the instant application.

Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his

contentions has relied on the judgments in the case of Afcons

Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (AIR

2016 SC 405), Montecarlo Ltd vs. NTPC Ltd (AIR 2016 SC

4946), Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs. Metcalfe &

Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 6 SCC 138]. Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The facts in brief are that an NIT dated 26.11.2018 was

issued by the Road Construction Department of the Government

of Bihar with respect to long term output and performance

based road assets maintenance work for the roads under package

no. 41A of the Road Division, Hilsa. The petitioner as also

others submitted their bid documents as required under the NIT

with all supporting documents. On the scheduled date and time

the technical bid of all the bidders including the petitioner was

opened. By order dated 16.1.2019 the petitioner and other four

bidders were declared successful in the technical bid evaluated

by the Departmental Tender Committee. It was further decided

that the decision of the Committee would be put up on the

website of the department and in case by 4 pm on 21.1.2019

(wrongly typed as 21.1.2017) any objection is received, the

Chief Engineer would convene a meeting of the Technical Bid

Evaluation Committee. In case no objection is received by the

said date, the Chief Engineer would place the financial bid

before the Departmental Bid Committee.

Admittedly, no objection was received till the due date,

on 21.1.2019 the financial bid was opened and the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

was found to be the lowest bidder. Three days after the cut of

date fixed by the order dated 16.1.2019 as also three days after

opening of the financial bid, an objection from Ramjee Singh

was received by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee.

Taking into consideration the contents of the objection, the

Departmental Tender Committee accepted the recommendation

of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee and by order dated

26.2.2019 rejected the objection filed by Ramjee Singh

Construction Pvt Ltd. However, taking into consideration the

fact that in the financial bid item wise bids/rates had been called

for which was contrary to Schedule 5 of the MBD, the

Departmental Tender Committee by the order impugned dated

26.2.2019 gave direction to the Chief Engineer to retender the

work.

In submissions made on behalf of the respondents as also

from the contents of the counter affidavits filed, the contention

of the respondents in brief is that the description of the work

required to be carried out by the contractor was given in four

schedules being ordinary maintenance service ('OM' in short),

initial rectification works ('IR' in short), periodic maintenance

work ('PM' in short) and minor improvement work ('MI' in

short). These four works were to be mentioned in Schedule nos. Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. So far as Schedule 5 is concerned, the

same was to contain provisional sums under two heads namely

(a) Emergency work, and (b) Contingency work.

It would be relevant to mention here itself that Clause

27.2(a) of the MBD clearly provided that to evaluate a bid, the

employer shall consider the bid price, excluding the provisional

sums. It is the contention of the respondents that while

provisional sum under contingency head was part of Schedule 5,

but inadvertently it was incorporated in Schedule 4 as well,

along with other items of minor improvement work (MI). Thus,

there was an error in the financial bid sheet and it vitiated the

tender in question. As the same could not be corrected under

Clause 26.1 of the MBD, which is being quoted herein below

for ready reference, the respondents were left with no option

and as such the Departmental Tender Committee rightly took a

decision by the order impugned dated 26.2.2019 to order for

retender.

Clause 26.1 of the MBD reads as follows:

"26.1 Provided that the bid is substantially responsive, the Employer shall correct arithmetical errors on the following basis:

(a) if there is a discrepancy between the unit price and the total price that is obtained by multiplying the unit price Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

and the quantity, the unit price shall prevail and the total price shall be corrected unless in the opinion of the Employer there is an obvious misplacement of the decimal in the unit price, in which case the total price as quoted shall govern and the unit price shall be corrected;

(b) if there is an error in a total corresponding to the addition or subtraction of subtotals, the subtotals shall prevail and the total shall be corrected; and

(c) if there is a discrepancy between words and figures, the amount in words shall prevail, unless the amount expressed in words is related to an arithmetic error, in which case the amount in figures shall prevail subject to (a) and (b) above."

Here itself it may be mentioned that so far as the order

impugned date 26.2.2019 is concerned, the reason given therein

by the Departmental Tender Committee for its direction to

retender is that item wise rates had been called for, for the

provisional sum (contingency) which was in violation of

Schedule 5 of the MBD.

Before proceeding to test the reasoning given by the

Departmental Tender Committee in the order impugned and the

submissions made on behalf of the respondents in support

thereof, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments relied on Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

by the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the

judgment in the case of Tata Cellular v Union of India (supra). It

is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although it

may not be for the Court to determine whether a particular

policy is fair or not, however, an administrative action would be

subject to judicial review on besides other grounds, in case the

same is irrational or unreasonable. Paragraph nos. 93, 94 and 95

of the judgment is quoted herein below :

"93. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be :

                                         1.       whether      a      decision-making
                                         authority exceeded its powers?
                                         2. committed an error of law.
                                         3. committed a breach of the rules of
                                         natural justice.
                                         4. reached a decision which no
                                         reasonable        Tribunal     would   have
                                         reached or.
                                         5. abused its powers.
                                                     94. Therefore, it is not for the
                                         Court        to    determine     whether   a

particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:

(i) Illegality : This means the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.

(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety.

95. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v.

Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, 'consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention'."

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relies Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

on paragraph nos. 59 and 64 of the judgment in the case of M.I

Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Radhey Shyam Sahu [(1999) 6 SCC 464] :

"59. When we keep in view the principles laid by this Court in its various judgments and which we have noticed above, it has to be held that the agreement dated 4-11-1993 is not a valid one. The agreement defies logic. It is outrageous. It crosses all limits of rationality. Mahapalika has certainly acted in fatuous manner in entering into such an agreement. It is a case where the High Court rightly interfered in exercise of its powers of judicial review keeping in view the principles laid by this Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India. Every decision of the authority except the judicial decision is amenable to judicial review and reviewability of such a decision cannot now be questioned. However, a judicial review is permissible if the impugned action is against law or in violation of the prescribed procedure or is unreasonable, irrational or mala fide.

On the principle of good governance reference was made to a decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

Court in State of Bombay v. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas (AIR Bom at p. 475) (Para 12). It was submitted that bad governance sets a bad example. That is what exactly happened in the present case.

............................

64. The reason for the construction of underground shopping complex given was that it would remove the congestion in the area. We have report of the Local Commissioner, which says that it would rather lead to more congestion. We think Mr. Dave is right in his submission that a decision to construct underground shopping complex by M.I. Builders had already been taken and that the whole process was gone into to confer undue benefit to M.I. Builders and the bogie of congestion was introduced to justify the action of the Mahapalika. It is wholly illegal and smacks of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and irrationality."

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State relies on

the judgment in the case of Afcons Infrastructure v. Nagpur

Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (AIR 2016 SC 4305) to submit that

unless there is malafide or perversity in understanding the Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

application of the terms of the tender conditions, the Courts

should not interfere. Paragraph no. 15 of the judgment which is

being quoted herein below was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in paragraph no. 23 in the case of Monte Carlo Ltd v.

NTPC Ltd. (AIR 2016 SC 4946).

"15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."

Learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the

judgment in the case of Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs.

Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 138] to submit

that even when some defect is found in the decision making

process, the Court must exercise its discretion with great caution Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

and only in furtherance of public interest. It was submitted that

this decision was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its

judgment in the case of Monte Carlo Ltd. (supra).

"15. The law relating to award of contract by State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not.

Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

interference, the Court should interfere." Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going

through the judgments cited, the question to be tested is as to

whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the

decision as contained in the order impugned dated 26.2.2019 by

the Departmental Tender Committee is arbitrary, unreasonable

and/or irrigational or whether the same is just and proper.

From perusal of the order dated 26.2.2019 it would

transpire that the Departmental Tender Committee proceeds to

reject the complaint/objection filed by Ramjee Singh

Construction Pvt Ltd, and for the reason that contrary to the

provisions contained in Schedule 5 to the MBD, item wise rates

for provisional (contingency) sum had been called for and thus

the Committee gave direction to the Chief Engineer for retender.

As per the case of the respondents the error which

occurred was that as per Clause 27.2(a) of Section-1 (ITB) of

the MBD, the provisional sum was to be excluded from the bid

price for the purpose of financial bid evaluation, but the

provisional sum under contingency head having inadvertently

been included in Schedule 4 also, all the bidders quoted

different rates for contingency work. The same was required to

be constant and at Schedule 5.

The question which would thus arise is that even though Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

the error may have occurred in calling for bids also of the

provisional (contingency) sum and including them in Schedule

4, was there any illegality in deciding the financial bid or was

any of the bidders prejudiced as a result thereof.

The C/s of financial bid has been brought on record both

by the petitioner as Annexure -8 (running page 110) as also by

the respondents as Annexure-B series (running page 139). From

perusal of the said document it transpires that though it is true

that the provisional sum under the contingency head has been

included in Schedule 4 also, however, while evaluating the

financial bid of the five bidders the contingency amount was

excluded and the financial bid was decided strictly in

accordance with Clause 27.2(a) of MBD which states that to

evaluate a bid the employer shall consider the bid price,

excluding provisional sums.

Here itself it would be relevant to quote the hand written

notes of the Assistant Engineer (DAO-II Road Division, Hilsa,

Nalanda), the Executive Engineer (Road Division, RCD, Hilsa)

and the Superintending Engineer (Road Construction

Department, Central Circle, Patna) in the C/s of financial bid

(Annexure-B series at page 139).

"EE.

C/s of financial bid checked and Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

found that -

All five bidder qualified in Technical bid evaluation. Bharadwaj Construction quoted 9.67 % below of Ecv bi (OM+PM+IR+MI) bid price, which is lower than other in financial bid evaluation.

C/s of financial bid forwarded for further n/a.

Sd/ 23.01.2019 DAO-II Road Division, RCD, Hilsa, Nalanda.

SE Central Circle Financial bid opened and rate quoted by the five bidders (a) Mother India Construction Pvt Ltd (b) Ms Surendra Prasad and Company (c) Shristi Developers Pvt Ltd (d) Ramjee Singh Construction Pvt (e) Bharadwaj Construction have been checked.

Mother India Const. Pvt Ltd found Non-responsive due to lower than 10 % in MI. Rest four bidders are responsive. Bharadwaj Construction has quoted total bid price of Rs 75340150.40 which is 9.67% below sanctioned (OM+IR+MI+PM).

Ramjee Construction Pvt has quoted bid price of Rs. 812534506.06 (-

2.58%), Shristi Developers Pvt Ltd has quoted bid price of Rs.

864557318.22 which 3.65 % above, Ms. Surendra Prasad and Company has quoted Rs. 867823153.70 which is 4.05% above sanctioned (OM+IR+MI+PM).

Bharadwaj Construction being first lowest bidder hence CS may be approved in favour of Bharadwaj Construction.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

Sd/ 23.01.19 EE Road Division, RCD Hilsa

C. Engg. South, RCD, Patna

Amoung five technically qualified Bidders Rates quoted by Bharadwaj Construction is the lowest.

Hence financial bid is forwarded for necessary action.

Sd/ Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Central Circle, Patna."

Having heard the contentions of the parties and on having

gone through the records of the case specially the C/s of

financial bid, it is clear that though error may have been

committed in asking for bid of provisional (contingency) sum or

in the paper work done in the office of the respondents while

preparing the chart for purpose of evaluating the financial bid,

however when it came to actual evaluation of the financial bids,

as would be evident from the notes of the Assistant Engineer,

the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer quoted

above, the same was done by the respondents not taking into

account the provisional sum (contingency) but was correctly

done in accordance with the provisions of clause 27.2(a) of the

MBD. Thus, in the opinion of the Court the action of Patna High Court CWJC No.5093 of 2019 dt.6-7-2021

respondents in coming out with the order impugned as

contained in memo no. 1692 (E) dated 26.2.2019 under the

signature of the Departmental Tender Committee cancelling the

tender for the reasons stated therein and directing the Chief

Engineer to take steps for retender is unreasonable and

irrational.

The Court does not find the reasoning given in the order

impugned dated 26.2.2019 by the Departmental Tender

Committee to be sound or sustainable. The order dated

26.2.2019 is set aside and the respondents are directed to take

consequential steps in the matter, the petitioner being the lowest

tenderer, within a period of six weeks from receipt of a copy of

this order.

The writ application stands allowed.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date