1. These two writ petitions are in relation to tenders issued by Government of Bihar in the Department of Water Resources in relation to anti erosion work. They are basically for supply of steel wires of different diameters and, hence, two separate groups in the tender. As per the notice inviting tender, tenderers had to file their bids in two sets, as is usual, first the technical bid and then the financial bid in separate sealed envelopes. The notice inviting tender was issued on 29.12.2008. Petitioner, apart from others, obtained tender papers and submitted their bid documents on or about 15.1.2009. The technical bids were opened on 16.1.2009. On opening the technical bids, no one was informed immediately about any deficiency in their technical bid. The Tender Committee then met on 29.1.2009 for evaluation of technical bids. In the meantime, it is not in dispute that as is usual, certain unanimous complaint was received against certain tenderers as to their technical capabilities. Department, vide its letter dated 20th of January 2009, sought clarifications from at least four of the tenderers and further documents in support of their technical bid. Ultimately in the 29th of January, 2009, the Tender Committee scrutinized the technical bids and apparently took a decision to reject petitioners technical bid apart from technical bid of few others. In the same meeting, it was then decided that financial bids of successful bidders would then be opened on 2nd of February, 2009. Though petitioner came to learn that his technical bid was rejected, he was not being disclosed the reason thereof. The reason for rejection of technical bid was for the first time alleged to be informed on the office notice board on the 3rd of February, 2009, petitioner came to know that both his technical bids had been rejected on the ground that though, as required by Clause-10 of the NIT, he had furnished bank guarantees of the required amount but they were drawn in favour of the Registrar, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna instead of Under Secretary (Accounts), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. On coming to know this, he immediately got rectification done and submitted rectified banks guarantees on the 5th of February, 2009 but on 4th of February, 2009 itself, the Tender Committee opened the financial bids and took decision to award the contract, in both cases, to respondent No. 7. Petitioner submits that mere wrong designation mentioning of an officer of the Water Resources Department was not such an illegality so as to vitiate his technical bid itself. It was a curable defect and not an illegality. The view taken by the Tender Committee kept under wraps till financial bids were opened denying opportunity to rectify the apparent clerical mistake and denying petitioner a chance to participate in the tender. It is, thus, submitted that the decision making process stands vitiated.

2. To the contrary, Shri Tarakant Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.7, in both the cases, and the learned State Counsel submit that furnishing bank guarantee was mandatory condition and the bank guarantee, as furnished by petitioner, was not adequate compliance of the said clause. Thus, it should be taken that in fact there was no bank guarantee at all which automatically leads to disqualification of the petitioner. It is these rival contentions that have to be considered in the cases at hand.

3. As pleadings are complete, with consent of parties, the writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage itself.

4. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to know as to why tenders have to be submitted bifurcated into two bids, one technical bid and the second financial bid. Technical bid is submitted for technical evaluation of the person tendering about his capability to perform the contract. At this stage, there is no inter se competition amongst the parties. It is the technical or as the case may be fi