Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. All the writ petitions, pertaining to the same tender process and raising the same grievance of alleged illegal rejection of technical bids of the petitioners, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petitions are that the petitioners, in response to the Request For Proposal (RFP), dated 20.12.2013, for collection of toll at Gangadhar Bridge No. 837/1 (Bir Chilarai Dolong), over river Gangadhar on the National Highway No. 37, for the period from 21.01.2014 to 20.01.2014, issued by the Government of Assam, in the Public Works (Bldg. & NH) Department, submitted tenders under two-bid system, i.e., (i) technical bid and (ii) financial bid.

2. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their technical bids, as indicated by the impugned letters dated 13.02.2014. The grounds assigned for rejection of the petitioners' tenders as non-responsive are as follows:

WP (C) 871/2014

Bidder has submitted Net worth & Net Accrual in the name of M/s. Girin Deka & Co. and also not in prescribed format.

WHO 872/2014

(i) Detail information, history is not reflected in the affidavit (Litigation/Arbitration) with regards Hon'ble High Court Case No. 6512/2013 against the Deptt.

(ii) Valuation Certificate submitted but not certified by CA.

WP (C) 873/2014

(i) Latest IT return for the year 2013-14 is not submitted.

(ii) Detail information, history is not reflected in the affidavit (Litigation/Arbitration with regards to Hon'ble High Court WP(C) No. 2968/2012 against the Deptt.

3. According to the petitioners, the grounds assigned by the respondents declaring the petitioners' technical bids as non-responsive are not valid grounds. It is the plea of the petitioners that a large number of tenders have been rejected, confining the choice at the level of financial bid to only six tenders, with a view to pick up the favourite one.

4. The respondents have resisted the writ petitions by filing counter-affidavits. According to the respondents, the petitioners having not fulfilled the required criteria mandatorily required to be fulfilled, their tenders have been rejected at the level of evaluation of the technical bids.

5. I have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) 871/2014 (first writ petition); Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) 872/2014 (second writ petition); and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) 873/2014 (third writ petition). I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records produced by Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned Standing counsel, PWD, in support of her arguments in favour of the respondents.

6. During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, the officials of the respondents, namely, Sri Nirmal Nunisha, Executive Engineer, PWD (NH), Chandmari, Guwahati; Sri Sumitra Mohan Saikia, Asstt. Executive Engineer, PWD (NH), Chandmari, Guwahati; and Sri Ram Krishna Sarmah, Junior Engineer, PWD, Office of the CE, PWD (NH), Chandmari, Guwahati, were also present along with the records and Mr. Nunisha rendered assistance to Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned Standing counsel, PWD. Mr. Nunisha also responded to the queries made by the Court during the course of hearing.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on certain decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, such as New Horizons Limited & Another v. Union of India & Others, (1995) 1 SCC 478, Jespar I. Slong v. State of Meghalaya & Others, (2004) 11 SCC 485, Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works & Others, (1991) 3 SCC 273 and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. State of Tripura, 2000 (2) GLT 476.

8. Learned counsel representing the respondents has also placed reliance on certain decisions, which are reported in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Others, (2000) 2 SCC 617 and Jain Video on Wheels Ltd