A.P. Lavande, J.––Rule. By consent of parties heard forthwith.

2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the award of tender for augmentation of Salauli Water Works Phase-I, Electrical-Mechanical supply of 33 KV transformer and vertical turbine pumps by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to respondent No.5. The petitioners further seek direction against the respondents to award the work under tender in favour of the petitioners.

3. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the petition, are as under :

On 2nd March, 2001, respondent No. 1 issued Circular according to which the tenders pertaining to the road, buildings, water supply and sewage works quoting more than 20% below the estimated cost put to the tender were to be rejected. The said Circular states that the same was issued in order to maintain proper quality of works. On 7.6.2005, respondent No.1 issued another Circular withdrawing the Circular dated 2.3.2001. On 13.6.2005, respondent No.2 issued a notice inviting tender for augmentation of Salauli Water Works Phase-I, Electrical-Mechanical supply of 33 KV transformer and vertical turbine pumps. In terms of the said notice, estimated cost of the work was Rs. 2,58,82,793/-. Thereafter, on 6.7.2005 respondent No.2 issued Corrigendum reducing the estimated cost to Rs. 2,48,23,500/-. On 27.6.2005, respondent No. 2 issued another Corrigendum extending the date of receipt of sealed tender by 24.8.2005 upto 15.00 hours instead of 9.8.2005 as stipulated in the original notice. On 12.8.2005, respondent No. 3 issued Circular stating that the Government of Goa had decided that tenders pertaining to roads, buildings water supply and sewarage works quoted more than 20% below the estimated cost put to tender should be rejected. Respondent No. 2 opened technical bids on 24.8.2005. Thereafter, by communication dated 17.11.2005, respondent No.2 informed petitioner No. 1 that based on the scrutiny of technical bids, it was decided as follows :

(1) Period for completion of work has to be considered as 240 days as against the 120 days stipulated in the tender documents.

(2) As regards to items No. 5 and 6 of the schedule, cable voltage shall be read as "3.3 KV" as against 33 KV.

(3) Copper loss in the transformer shall be 34 KW as against the stipulated 35 KW earlier stipulated.

Petitioner No. 1 was asked to modify financial offer in consideration of the above, in case petitioner No. 1 so desired and submit the same on or before 15.00 hours on 29.11.2005. By another communication dated 25.11.2005, respondent No. 2 requested petitioner No. 1 to extend the validity of above tender for further period of three months from 25.11.2005 till 28.2.2006. On 28.11.2005, petitioner No. 1 submitted revised financial bid in an envelope and requested respondent No.2 to treat the old price bid as cancelled and not to open the same. Petitioner No. 1 also extended the validity of the tender as requested to 28.2.2006. On 29.11.2005, the financial bids of four tenderers were opened and they are as follows :

(a) Kirloskar Brothers (respondent No.5), Rs. 1,75,00,000/-

(b) Nanu Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (Petitioner No.1), Rs. 1,98,58,800/-

(c) Friends Engineering, Rs. 1,98,58,800/-

(d) Allied Electro Mechanical (P) Ltd., Rs. 2,01,46,594/-

4. On 10.12.2005, the petitioners addressed a letter to respondent No. 2 pointing out that respondent No. 5 had quoted more than 20% below the estimated cost put to tender and as such, the tender of respondent No. 5 should be rejected. Again, on 20.12.2005 the petitioners made another representation to respondent No. 2 pointing out the Government Circular and that acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 5 would be in breach of the said Circular.

5. On 21.12.2005, the petitioners made similar representation to respondent No. 3 pointing out that respondent No. 2 had flouted the Government Circular. By letter dated 2.1.2006, respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners to approach respondent No. 3 since respondent No. 3