The discretion of the government in awarding contracts must be structured by rational, relevant, and non-discriminatory standards, considering larger public interest.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 3.7.2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4333 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed holding that the appellant could not make out any ground for setting aside the decision taken by the evaluation committee dated 1.3.2007 awarding contract work to respondent No. 5 M/s Teledata Informatics Limited being the lowest bidder.

3. The Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as "BSEDC") a State undertaking in furtherance of execution of its scheme to implement the computer education programme in Government Schools/Government Aided Schools decided to carry out the ICT School Project in 1000 of such schools in first phase. The entire financial requirement was to be made under the joint collaboration of Central Government and the State Government in ratio of 3:1 i.e. 75% cost to be incurred by the Central Government and 25% by the State Government.

4. To fulfill the requirements of the scheme the BSEDC came out with a tender notice on 1.2.2007, which was published in newspaper for supply of installation and maintenance of IT infrastructures of ICT education project in 1000 schools across rural and urban areas of the State of Bihar in efficient and effective manner on Lease, Maintenance and Transfer basis (LMT) for a duration of three years in accordance with various provisions of Request For Proposal Documents (RFP).

5. Pursuant to the tender notice the writ petitioner appellant and respondent No. 5, M/s Teledata Informatics Limited and others filed their respective tender papers. The evaluation committee considered the tender papers of the applicants and in its meeting dated 1.3.2007 the evaluation committee of BSEDC accepted the tender papers of respondent No. 5, M/s Teledata Informatics Limited, as it was the lowest bidder, and, accordingly, letter of intent was issued. The writ petitioner appellant challenged the decision of the evaluation committee dated 1.3.2007 in this Court in its writ jurisdiction in C.W.J.C. No. 4333 of 2007, which was dismissed giving rise to this appeal.

6. It would also be pertinent to notice here that during the pendency of the writ application an agreement was entered into in between BSEDC and respondent No. 5, M/s Teledata Informatics Limited, and contract work, thus, finally commenced.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant substantially argued that the writ petitioner appellant was the only tenderer, who was eligible in terms of the RFP and since respondent No. 5 had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria, as laid down in Clause 18(b) of the RFP, his tender paper could not have been accepted, as it lacked in experience as provided under Clause 18(b) of the RFP. According to him, Clause 18(b) of the RFP requires that the bidder should be a computer education training company with adequate experience of having executed similar projects of atleast 200 schools with a single State Government. At the same time, respondent No. 5 also failed to meet the eligibility criteria as per Clause 18(e) of the RFP, which requires that the bidder must have successfully completed atleast a project of ten crores or two projects of five crores or three projects of three crores in India. Learned Counsel, in this view of the matter, submitted that the commercial bid of respondent No. 5 was non-responsive to the scope of work defined in the RFP. It is further contended that according to own admission, as per the document supplied by respondent No. 5, it was not eligible in terms of Clauses 18(b) and 18(e) of the RPP, as it has no experience of having executed similar projects of 200 schools in a single State nor it had successfully completed atleast a project of required amount as indicated in Clause 18(e) of the RFP. In the backgrounds of the submissions learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the l