JUDGMENT :

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11th November, 2021 whereby WPA No. 17814 of 2021 filed by the respondent No. 1 herein has been disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to permit the respondent No. 1 to file a rectified application in consonance with the proforma attached to the notice inviting electronic bid dated 20th October, 2021. Further directing that if such a rectification application is submitted, the respondent authorities will upon due scrutiny, consider the same as valid, subject to compliance with the formalities as appearing from the Notice Inviting Tender (for short ‘NIT’) and its annexures and treat the respondent No. 1’s bid as technically correct thereby entitling him to participate in the tender process.

2. The brief facts in narrow compass are that the Notice Inviting Electronic Bid (for short ‘NIEB’) was floated by the respondent No. 3 for collection of toll tax on Ajay Bridge over river Ajay at Ilambazar in the district of Birbhum dated 08th October, 2021. The parties including the appellant and respondent No. 1 had submitted their bids and the respondent No. 1 was informed by communication dated 09th November, 2021 about rejection of his technical bid. Since no opportunity to submit certificate was given before rejection therefore, same day the reply was sent by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had approached the Writ Court raising the grievance that the technical bid was illegally rejected and that the procedure prescribed was not followed. The learned Single Judge has found that the procedure as prescribed in the memorandum dated 15th June, 2019 was not followed and also considering the minor nature of discrepancies which crept in while filling up the Form, has disposed of the petition with the direction as noted above.

3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the technical bid of the respondent No. 1 suffers from error in as much as the proforma prescribed for the application in Section - B Form – I was not properly filled up by the respondent No. 1 and there were mistakes therein. He further submits that Clause B (v) relating to bid evaluation does not permits such kind of correction and the mistakes which were noticed in the form submitted by the respondent No. 1 are also not covered by the memorandum dated 15th January, 2019. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 451 and in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651. He has also submitted that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 517 in support of his submission and has also submitted that the concession given by the Advocate is not binding contrary to law and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1081.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposing the appeal and supporting the order of the learned Single Judge has submitted that since certain minor mistakes had taken place in the application form, therefore, in view of the memorandum dated 15th January, 2019 and clause B(v) of the NIT, correction has rightly been allowed.

5. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the concession give by the Counsel for the State before the Writ Court was only in respect of consideration of bid and that the technical bid was defective, hence, it has rightly been rejected.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The technical bid of the respondent No. 1 was rejected by order dated 09th November, 2021 on the ground that the application was not in order. The format o