Every decision of the State must be supported by reasons and cannot be arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. - The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature thereof quashing the impugned notice dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Respondent in relation to the Project and all acts/actions taken by the Respondent in furtherance thereto;

(b) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/ order/direction in the nature thereof directing the Respondent to award the work contract in relation to the Project to the Petitioner in pursuance to the evaluation of Petitioner's bid on 10.09.2020;

(c) call for complete records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 04.01.2021 and erstwhile NIT dated 20.08.2020 in relation to the Project, including all correspondences/communications/file notings/internal communications etc. in relation thereto;"

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and therefore proceed to dispose of the writ petition.

3. The Sewerage Maintenance Division, Civil Engineering Department of the respondent/New Delhi Municipal Council issued a notice inviting tenders (NIT) on 20.08.2020 in relation to the project in question i.e. "Rehabilitation of existing 1100-1200 mm Dia Sewer Line at Ashoka Road from Nirvachan Sadan to C-Hexagon".

4. As per the NIT, the estimated cost of the project was Rs.16,61,35,617/- with the time of completion being six months. The petitioner and some other bidders submitted their bids in response to the NIT. The petitioner also deposited earnest money of Rs.33,22,712/- in terms of the NIT. After technical evaluation, only two bidders namely the petitioner and one M/s Gypsum Structural were found eligible for opening of their financial bids. Upon opening of the financial bids, the petitioner was found to be the Lowest Bidder (L1). Despite the petitioner being the L1 bidder, the respondent sought to impliedly cancel the tender process by way of notice dated 04.01.2021, inviting fresh bids for the same work and at the same estimated cost. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner was that despite being the L1 bidder and technically qualified, the respondent suddenly, without any communication or reason, decided to drop the ongoing tendering process, and invited fresh bids all over again.

5. On 13.01.2021, this Court, while issuing notice in the petition, had restrained the respondent from proceeding with NIT dated 04.01.2021, and had also directed the respondent to produce before the Court the original records relating to the NIT in question. On 22.01.2021, which was the next date, we examined the record produced before us and passed the following order:

     

"In accordance with our directions given in the last order, the original record relating to the tender in question has been circulated.
From a perusal of the same, it appears that the petitioner was found to be qualified in all respects and in fact, its financial bid was also found to be acceptable. The matter was to be placed before the Council as Agenda Item No. 15 (A-11) in its meeting dated 26.12.2020. There is a note by Mr. D. Sengupta, H.A. (CS) dated 21.12.2020to this effect, which alsostates that the file may be returned to the office of CE(C-1). Thereafter, the next note of CE(C-1) is of 12.01.2021, stating that Councils decision may please be intimated.The matter was filed and taken up by this Court upon urgent mentioning on the very same day i.e. 13.01.2021. The respondents were aware of the filing of the petition, having been served with an advance copyon 13.01.2021.
We may also refer to the note dated 13.01.2021 of Mr. D Sengupta H.A. (CS), which reads as under: -
"As desired by the Deptt.