Harish Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner, a registered company represented through its authorized signatory, on being aggrieved by the communication dated 12.04.2024 produced as Annexure P5 has preferred the present writ petition seeking quashing of the same. By the impugned order the respondent Transport Department, Government of Bihar declared the petitioner disqualified and rejected the technical bid. The petitioner is also seeking a direction upon the respondent to accept the technical bid and opening of the financial bid of the petitioner company and award the tender as the petitioner is L1 bidder, having quoted the lowest bid.

3. Learned Senior Counsel while questioning the impugned order vehemently contended that the official respondents rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the petty and flimsy ground without affording/giving any opportunity to offer and explain about the typing error of one digit at one place.

4. It is further contended that the mistake, if any that occurred in the certificate of Human Resource Declaration, in relation to man power, a minor typographical error had crept into as instead of date 30.03.2024, wrong date as 30.03.2023 was erroneously typed/written this was clearly due to oversight and thus the mistake was ignorable. The respondent authorities ought to have followed the principles of natural justice, before declaring the petitioner company disqualified.

5. The defect if any, was a rectifiable defect at the time of evaluation of the technical bid, specially when there is a special clause, whereby clarification could have been asked by the respondent authorities on such ignorable minor typographical error before deciding against the petitioner, is the contention of the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Counsel also took this Court to the relevant provisions of the NIT, specially clause 3.18 and 3.19, which in sum and substance stipulates that if deemed necessary, the Transport Department, Government of Bihar may seek clarification on any aspect from the bidder. However, that would not entitle the bidder to change or cause any change in the substance of tender submitted or price quoted. Transport Department, Government of Bihar may, if then so desire, ask the bidder to give a presentation for the purpose of clarification of the tender. Further clause 3.19 mandates that only a bid determined as not substantially responsive, will be rejected by the Transport Department, Government of Bihar and it may not subsequently be made responsive by the bidder, by correction of the non-confirmity. The Transport Department, if necessary, can waive any minor infirmity or non-confirmity or irregularity in a bid which does not constitute a material deviation, provided such a waiver does not prejudice or affect the relative ranking of any bidder.

7. Referring to the afore-noted clauses, learned Senior Counsel would thus submit that the declaration of giving certificate through its Human Resources regarding the fact of existence of more than hundred persons working on its pay roll, is not a material requirement, nor would it prejudice or affect any relevant ranking of the bidder. The respondent authorities ought to have considered the fact at the time of perusing the technical bid which was submitted by the petitioner. However, the Transport Department neither sought a clarification in this matter, nor waived off the error.

8. If in the tender process this practice is allowed to be followed it would always end in hurried and hasty opening of financial bids, in which event both clause number 3.18 and 3.19 becomes obsolete and redundant. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s company stood to be the lowest in the bidding process, saving atleast INR 4 crores as compared to the leading bidder at present in the absence of the petitioner.

9. Adverting to the aforesaid f