VIKASH JAIN, J.:–I agree.The Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd.( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Power Company’) published a tender notice on 10.7.2012 for Rural Electrification Works under the Rajeev Gandhi Gramin Vidyut Karan Yojna (hereinafter referred to as ‘RGGVY’) in 11 Districts of the State under the 12th plan. The Rural Electrification Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘REC’) was the Nodal Agency. The tender was cancelled by the Power Company on 8.3.2013. A fresh tender notice was published on 26.3.2013. The aggrieved bidders challenged the cancellation and the fresh advertisement.

2. The Rural Electrification Department of the Power Company submitted a Detailed Project Report [DPR] under the RGGVY for rural electrification of 26 Districts in the State. The REC examined the DPR and sanctioned it for 11 Districts only. The REC also modified the DPR for HT /LT connections by restricting it to providing of domestic connections only. It did not accept 33/11 KVA sub-stations to be set up as mentioned in the DPR. A Village or part of a Village having a population of less than hundred was also excluded by it from rural electrification. Transformers of 63 KVA mentioned in the DPR were reduced to 25 KVA. The Power Company then published a notice inviting tenders on 10.7.2012 in sealed cover for rural electrification work comprising supply of materials and equipment's in the Districts of Patna, Banka, Rohtas, Gaya, Purnea, Araria, Bhojpur, Nawada, Siwan, Kishanganj and Nalanda on a turnkey basis. The tender notice comprised of two parts, Part- A and Part- B. The DPR works component approved by REC formed Part- A to be funded by the Central Government. The work component in Part-B comprised of works in the DPR not approved by the REC and was to be funded by the State Government.

3. The notice inviting tenders published by the Power Company was composite for both part A and B for supply of materials and equipment?s. A bidder was required to offer for the complete works of the package in both parts. The tender price to be quoted was required to include all expenses relating to labour also. It therefore mentioned the total estimated cost of the project for a District cumulatively. For example, the total estimated costs for the District of Bohjpur was Rs.1 9083.28 lacs. The tender notice also mentioned the break- up of the estimated cost of the project for Part- A as Rs. 15983.28 Lacs and for Part- B as Rs. 3415.34 Lacs. Clause 1.2.1 off the tender notice provided that works shall be executed strictly as per REC specifications and guidelines. Items not covered by REC guidelines/specifications would be as approved by the Power Company. Clause 2.3.2 of the tender notice provided that sealed tenders for each district should be submitted in two parts (a) technical and Commercial offer (Part I) and Price offer (Part II) in separate envelopes superscribed Part I and Part II. A tenderer could bid for a maximum of two Districts only.

4. A total of 42 bids were received. All Technical / Commercial Bids (Part I) were opened on 27.9.2012. The Central Purchase Committee of the Power Company received complaints against some of the bidders regarding their work performance records under other contracts including those forwarded through the REC. No formal orders were passed regarding the acceptance or rejection of individual Technical / Commercial bids. Nonetheless on 9.11.2012 Financial bids (Part II) were opened for only 7 Districts comprising of such bidders against whom no complaints had been received. The rest were deferred. All financial bids for Patna, Banka and Rohtas were opened on 9.11.2012 and for Gaya on 21.11.2012, since there were no complaints against any of the bidders for these Districts. The remainder financial bids were opened on 22.11.2012 and that for one District was opened on 21.12.2012. Consequently the status of an L 1 bidder on basis of financial bids opened on 9.11.2012 underwent a change of status after openin