JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment dated 10th October, 1996, of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Original Jurisdiction case No. 6457 of 1996. By the impugned judgment the High Court has quashed the ultimate decision of the Paradip Port Trust in terms of the Resolution dated 23.8.96 to award the contract to AFCONS, the present appellant, as well as the letter of communication by Paradip Port Trust to AFCONS dated 24.8.96 and had further directed the Port Trust to effect negotiations with AFCONS, the present appellant as well as the Trafalgar House Construction of India Ltd. who was the petitioner in OJC and respondent No. I herein, giving them opportunity to make fresh offers and then lowest bidder should be given the awards. The High Court also further directed that if there cannot be any negotiation within one month from the date of the judgment then the Port Trust will be free to ask for rebidding for the particular project which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition. It is not necessary to narrate the entire gamut of facts. Suffice it to state that for construction of Wharf intended for creation of mechanised handling facility of coal at Paradip Port the Asian Development Bank at Manila had agreed to give loan to the extent of 134.85 million US dollars and it was intended that a part of this amount would be utilised for the construction of the Wharfi The entire project consists of nine major packages and non completion of any package would make the entire project unworkable. A pre-qualification notice was issued inviting the offers and then on receipt of the pre-qualification documents those were sent to a Committee for evaluation. The consultants submitted their evaluation recommending six firms including the appellant and respondent No. 1 for the construction of the Wharf. The Tender Committee of Port Trust reviewed the evaluation made by the consultants and recommended the names of all the six firms. The aforesaid evaluation report was sent to the Financial Institution, namely, the Asian Development Bank for obtaining its views. The Board of Trustees of Paradip Port Trust thereafter approved the said six firms and then invited for bids by their letter dated 27.9.95. The last date for submission of bids was 27th December, 1995, 11.00 a.m. Out of the six firms only three firms submitted their bids, namely, the appellant, the respondent No. 1 and one Muhibbah Engineering (M) BHD, Malaysia. In accordance with the prescribed procedure the bids were opened and were processed, After examining all the bids and determination of responsiveness of the bidders three bids were sent to the consultant for evaluation report. The consultant found some discrepancy in the bid documents about the amount of concrete required for pre-cast planks for the Wharf Deck. The consultants then corrected the error and after making re-calculation came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1’s bid was the lowest. The Tender Committee of Paradip Port Trust accepted the recommendation of the consultants and submitted the same for approval of the Financial Institution, namely, the Asian Development Bank. The Bank by its communication dated 23rd April, 1996, stated that they are unable to support the approach set out in the Bid Evaluation Report and they cannot accept the proposed bid change in the quantity. The Bank also came to be conclusion that the lowest evaluated substantially responsive bidder is AFCONS, the present appellant, and accordingly recommended that the contract of construction of the Wharf be awarded to AFCONS. On receipt of the view of the Bank and since substantial amount of finance was to be given by the Bank as loan the Port Trust again asked their consultants about the earlier bid evaluation. The Special Tender Committee again met on 16.5.96 and then formulated its views and communicated the same to the Bank on 12.5.96. The Bank wrote back on 5th Jun