The Railway Authorities are not bound to accept the lowest tender in all cases, but if the lowest tender is not accepted, there must be some reasonable ground for that.

( 1 ) BY a Tender Notice No. 4a 81-82 dt. 4th May, 1981, the Divisional Rly. Manager, Eastern Rly. , invited tenders for execution of new works, works for additions and alterations as also repairs and maintenance works of miscellaneous nature for Zone No. 108 from 1st July 1981 to 30th June, 1982, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Tender Notice. The notice was issued by the Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway. The petitioner, Om-prakash Patwarika, one Bijoy Sankar Bohra and Santosh Kumar Sharma submitted their tenders in response to the aforesaid notice. The tenders were also submitted on 17th June, 1981, and were opened in the presence of the representatives of the tenderers. It appears that the rates quoted by Omprakash Patwarika, the petitioner herein, were the lowest Santosh Kumar Sharma's quotations were on the whole the highest of the three tenders that were submitted. By a memo dated 5th Aug. 1981, the Divisional Engineer asked all the three tenderers to submit analysis against items Nos. 1 and 2 (Cement, concrete and brick work) in support of the rates quoted in the tenders. The petitioner and Sarkar (San-tosh) Kumar Sharma submitted detailed analysis of their quotations as required by the Divisional Engineer. Bijoy Sankar Bohra, however, did not submit any such analysis. It appears that the tender of Santosh Kumar Sharma who had on the whole quoted the highest rates was accepted.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, Omprakash Patwarika has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid decision of the Railway Authorities to accept the bid of Santosh Kumar Sharma, the Respondent No. 6 herein. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Railway Authorities were not bound to give work order to the lowest tenderer in all cases, but if the lowest tender is not accepted there must be some reasonable ground for that. Strong reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Air Port Authority of India,. It was argued that the Government did not have an unfettered or arbitrary discretion in the matter of accepting tenders. It was argued that tha petitioner had successfully submitted tenders quoting the same rates in respect of Zone No. 96, an adjacent zone under the same Division. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner had made identical bids in two adjoining zones, one was accepted but the other was rejected as unworkable by the Railway Authorities. The petitioner submitted that this action of the Railway Authorities was clearly against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

( 3 ) IT was submitted on behalf o the Railway Authorities that the quotations were on the face of it unreal and could not be accepted having regard to the market price. It was submitted that the analysis of the quotations were invited only for the purpose of being fair to the petitioner and also to the other tenderers.

( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner, however, cannot be accepted. The petitioner's allegations in paragraph 18 of the petition that the petitioner submitted a tender in respect of Zone No. 96 under the Divisional Engineer 3, quoting exactly the same rate quoted in Zone No. 108 are factually incorrect. It appears from the tender papers produced by the Railway Authorities at the hearing that the petitioner had quoted much higher figures for Zone 96 where his bid was successful. The petitioner's quotation for Zone 108 was much lower.

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid it cannot be said that the decision of the Railway Authorities not to accept tender of the petitioner on the ground that the rates quoted by the petitioner in respect of Zone No. 1'08 were unworkable is not on the face of it capricious or arbitrary.

( 6 ) RELIANCE was also placed on behalf of the petitioner in the case of S. P. Das v. State of West Bengal, (1980) 2 Cal HN 480. In that case an agreement was en