Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 154/2013, allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 as the writ petitioner by quashing the decision of the Corporate Business Committee of the appellant taken in its 430th meeting held on 27.12.2012 not to award the contract to the respondent No. 1 and remanding the matter back to the appellant to take a fresh decision by taking into consideration all relevant materials and in conformity with the findings recorded in the judgment. Matter relates to award of a contract for two numbers of 2000 HP VFD rig packages following E-Tender by the appellant, Oil India Ltd. (OIL). Respondent No. 1 as the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises and the appellant was the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition.

2. Facts of the case may be briefly noted.

3. OIL, a Govt. of India undertaking, floated open global E-Tender No. SDG 9008P11/07, inviting bids under single stage two bids system for awarding contract for two numbers of 2000 HP rig packages. 27 parties purchased tender papers. Pre-Bid Conference was held on 21.09.2010 and 22.09.2010. Ultimately, five parties submitted tender, including respondent No. 1 (Drillmec SPA, Italy) and respondent No. 2 (China Petroleum Technology and Development Corporation). Tender was also submitted by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), not a party in the appellate proceeding.

4. Technical bids of all the five bidders were opened on 15.06.2011. The bids of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and BHEL were found to be technically responsive. However, the bid of BHEL was rejected because of non-extension of bid validity period.

5. Following the approval of Corporate Business Committee (CBC), price bids of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were opened on 07.03.2012. On the ground that there were certain discrepancies in the price bids of the two parties, CBC decided to refer the matter to the Independent External Monitors, which recommended that because of the discrepancies noticed, fresh price bids be invited from the bidders who were found technically responsive. Accordingly, fresh price bids were invited not only from respondent Nos. 1 & 2, but also from BHEL. In the fresh price bids submitted, OIL noticed insertion of a new condition by respondent No. 1, which would be adverted to in detail in the succeeding paragraphs of this judgment. Suffice it to say at this stage that as per the new condition, respondent No. 1 indicated that it reserved the right to manufacture and test the rigs or part of them in any of its facilities as per availability. It was further noticed that respondent No. 1 had indicated the prices of only 19 major rig components as against the tender requirement of 63 major rig components as prescribed in the price bid annexure-A4 format attached with the tender documents.

6. Respondent No. 2 submitted complaints, against the fresh price bid submitted by respondent No. 1, which was taken note of by the appellant OIL. Legal opinion of the Attorney General of India was taken by OIL as to whether insertion of a new clause in the price bid and non-mentioning of the prices of all the major rig components in the price bid would render the price bid of respondent No. 1 non-responsive.

7. On 27.12.2012 CBC of OIL held its 430th meeting, in which it was decided to exclude the respondent No. 1 from the tender process and to hold price negotiation with respondent No. 2.

8. At this stage, respondent No. 1 as the writ petitioner filed the related writ petition.

9. Respondent No. 1 contended in the writ petition that on both the occasions when the price bids were opened, it emerged as the lowest bidder (L1). Being L1, it was expecting award of contract in its favour. It stated that respondent No. 2 made unsolicited correspondences with the appellant and based on such correspondence, decision was taken in the 430th meeting of the CBC h