B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by an unsuccessful tenderer so as to challenge the Work Order No. NLD/RMSA/NIT/2010-11 dated 07.01.2013, issued by the State Mission Director, Nagaland, Kohima (Annexure-F), whereby the work for construction of school buildings in the district of Kohima has been awarded to the respondent No. 4.

Heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.M. Jamir, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appealing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

Gist of the case is that a short notice inviting tenders (briefly 'NIT') was floated on 13.12.2012 inviting tenders for construction of 67 Government High Schools at various locations in eleven districts of Nagaland. For the district of Kohima five firms had submitted their tenders and three firms were disqualified in the technical bid. Hence, the tenders of the petitioner and that of the respondent No. 4 remained for consideration in the financial bid. As per the NIT the firms were supposed to quote the rates on percentage basis, i.e. above, below or at par with the NPWD Schedule of Rates of 2010 (in short 'SOR 2010'). According to the respondents the writ petitioner quoted .5% below the SOR 2010 whereas, the respondent No. 4 quoted the rate at par with SOR 2010. After analyzing the financial bid of both the tenderers the Tender Committee has accepted the tender of respondent No. 4 and has rejected the tender of the writ petitioner with the following remarks:-

Working at 5% below NPWD SoR 2010 in 2013 is most likely to result in compromising the work quality. The Committee do not consider this to be a workable rate without compromising quality. Hence, it is recommended that Work Order may be issued to M/s. Khedi Trade & Dev. Agency.

2. On the basis of the decision of the Tender Committee the concerned department has issued the work order to the private respondent vide impugned Order dated 07.01.2013, which is under challenged in this writ petition.

3. Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the writ petitioner had quoted 5% (1/2%) below the SOR 2010 the Tender Committee has wrongly noted that the petitioner had quoted 5% (five) below SOR 2010 and the said offer is not workable.

4. After perusing the original tender of the writ petitioner a lurking suspicion had developed in my mind that the dot prefixing 5% might have been put in the tender subsequent to the preparation of the comparative statement However, no such plea of manipulation of the tender has been taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit Even otherwise Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has instructions from his client to accept the offer at 5% below the SOR 2010, if this Court approves the same. Hence, I am proceeding to examine the justification of rejection of the petitioner's tender even if it is presumed that he has quoted the rate 5% below SOR 2010.

5. Mr. N.M. Jamir, learned State counsel has submitted that the Tender Committee has rejected the bid of the writ petitioner consciously and in the interest of the State without any mala fide intention. The learned counsel submits that the bank certificate regarding financial solvency certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was one year old and it was not updated to take a view that the writ petitioner was found financially sound to execute the work. On these premises the learned Government counsel tried to defend the impugned work order.

6. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 argued at length to contend that the tender of the writ petitioner was defective inasmuch as the offered rate was not quoted in words and a scope was kept open to manipulate the rate subsequently. The learned counsel also supported the submission of the learned State counsel regarding solvency certificate of