JUDGMENT :

Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

Relief (s) sought in the writ petition

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming the reliefs as under:-

(i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

(ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed the impugned NIT dated 23/07/2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent no.3.

(iii) The Hon’ble Court may be kindly pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19/07/2022 contained in noting sheet (Annexure P-2) with regard to cancellation of tender and forfeiture of EMD as well debarring petitioner from participating in fresh tender.

(iv) The Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to quash the decision of cancellation of NIT bearing no. AGM/HSD/SO(E&M)e-Tender/ 06 dated 10.05.2022 and direct the respondent no.2 to issue the work order in favour of petitioner.

(v) The Hon’ble Court may be kindly pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to make enquiry and take appropriate legal departmental action against the respondent no.4 for his illegal act.

(vi) The Hon’ble Court may be kindly pleased to direct the respondent to refund the forfeited EMD and allow the petitioner to participate in fresh tenders.

(vii) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.

Factual Matrix

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.3 on 10.5.2022 issued Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘NIT’) online for the work of “Replacement of LT and HT Copper by Aluminium cable in different Substation (3.3kv/440) Rajnagar RO and Kurja Sub Area and for supplying and installation of street light timer of different sub area of Hasdeo Area” with estimated cost of Rs.75,26,158/- prescribing the terms and condition for participating and eligibility of bidders. The petitioner being partnership firm and “A” class electrical contractor participated in the bidding process.

3. The respondent authorities opened the technical bid on 27.05.2022 and tender committee found three eligible bidders for opening of financial bid. The financial bid was opened on 11.07.2022 and the amount quoted by the petitioner was found to be the lowest amongst the other bidders and was declared L-1. On the same day, finding the rates of the petitioner to be quite low compared to the estimated cost, the respondent no.3 sought price justification item-wise as to how the petitioner would ensure payment of applicable wages to employed workmen. The justification of the same was given by the petitioner vide its letter dated 12.07.2022 stating that the rates quoted by it is justifiable. It was also assured by the petitioner that the quality and quantity of the material would not be compromised. It was also assured that the labour payment etc. would be done as per norms. It was also undertaken by the petitioner that it would claim the amount of work done only after the completion of work, without claiming any advance payment or part-payment. The respondent no.3 again on 13.07.2022 issued a letter asking for the same justification, which was duly replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 13.07.2022.

4. The petitioner further pleaded that despite proper justification being given, the respondent no.4 contacted the petitioner and asked for satisfying his demand, else work order would not be issued and as the demand of respondent no.4 was not fulfilled, on 22.07.2022, the cancellation of tender was published in the web portal. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was debarred from participating in fresh tender and EMD of the petitioner was also forfeited without giving any opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice. On the very next date i.e. 23.07.2022, the respondent authority issued fresh NIT for the same work. The petitioner made representation for review of the deci