Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and impugning legality, validity and correctness of memo dated 10-3-2016 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1 whereby tech-commercial bid of the petitioner has been rejected assigning reasons, the petitioner herein, a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition. The petitioner herein also seeks to challenge memo dated 8-4-2016 (Annexure P-2) whereby the State Government has rejected the representation of the petitioner made pursuant to Annexure P-1 and the petitioner consequently seeks quashment of order Annexure P-11 whereby respondent No.1 has signed Rate Contract with respondent No.3 and issued purchase order dated 26-5-2016 directing supply of 16,819 quantity of Laptops Model No. HP 245 G4 and the net value of supply is Rs. 29,41,64,310.00 (Rupees twenty nine crores forty one lakhs sixty four thousand three hundred and ten only).

Facts leading to petition

2. Shorn of all paraphernalia, essential facts requisite to adjudicate the legal dispute brought before us in nutshell are as under:-

2.1 Respondent No.1 floated a global NIT/Request for Proposal inviting bids from reputed bidders on 27-1-2016 (Annexure R-1) in which the subject matter in controversy relates to item No.2 – NIT 02/CYSKY/ DTE/LAPTOP/2016 with regard to empanelment of agency for supplying and commissioning of Laptops for students in the State of Chhattisgarh under the Chhattisgarh Yuva Soochana Kranti Yojana and a copy of Request for Proposal (RFP) has been filed as Annexure P-3. Clause 7 of the Request for Proposal – Bid Submission, states that the tech-commercial bid sealed in one envelope should be marked as “Tech-commercial Bid” and shall contain technical details of the items quoted and also provide full details of deviations, if any, from the technical specification mentioned. The bidder should fill-up the format given in Annexure-I of the tender documents. Thereafter, 3-2- 2016 was fixed for pre-bid query and on the same day, later point of time, at 3 p.m., pre-bid conference was held and prebid response was published on 5-2-2016 on website and subsequent to issuance of RFP in relation to ANNEXURE 'A', a pre-bid clarification was issued on 12-2-2016 pursuant to pre-bid response from the Directorate of Technical Education and pre-bid meeting was held as stated on 3-2-2016. Technical bids for participating in the RFP were submitted on 25-2-2016 as per corrigendum dated 12-2-2016. In response to the NIT and subsequent corrigendum No.2, three bids in response to the RFP and two bids in response to the corrigendum were received from the petitioner, respondent No.3 herein namely M/s. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., and respondent No.4 M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd..

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 25-2-2016, tech-commercial bid was opened and it was sent for evaluation to the specification committee and on 1-3-2016, respondent No.2 herein sought clarification about the launching of processor in Q1-2016 and BIS certificate which was replied by the petitioner on 3-3-2016, and on 8-3-2016, financial bids of two bidders i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 were opened which was not informed to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that unofficially, the petitioner came to know about the opening of price bid and sent e-mail seeking confirmation as to why the petitioner's bid was not considered as it was eligible, vide Annexure P-8 and in response to the e-mail dated 9-3-2016, for the first time, the petitioner was intimated the reasons, vide Annexure P-1, for rejection of its tech-commercial bid against which the petitioner made various representations including representations Annexures P-9 and P-10. Ultimately, the representations were re