” The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Project Circle, Aizawl, Mizoram on behalf of the Government of Mizoram invited Sealed Item Rates/Percentage Rate Tender from approved and eligible Contractor of PWD and firms for construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn and construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-II for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn by NIT dated 21-2-2014.

The petitioner in response to the NIT submitted his bid for the construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn. The tender documents were opened on 18-3-2014 wherein along-with the petitioner there were two other bidders and the petitioner bid was found to be the lowest. While the petitioner was waiting for finalization of the NIT, the respondents through the Superintending Engineer, i.e. respondent No. 5 issued a notice dated 4-4-2014 informing that the NIT for Group No. 1 and 2 for construction of 200 Bedded Hostel Block-I and II for Mizoram College of Nursing at Falkawn was cancelled due to technical reason. The petitioner had also sought information from the RTI and he was informed that there was certain mistake committed in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) resulting in the decision to cancel the NIT. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents.

3. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the NIT dated 21.2.2014, the petitioner had tendered his bid document which was opened on 18.2.2014. There were 3 bidders, amongst which the petitioner” s bid was found to be the lowest and in the comparative statement for the NIT dated 21.2.2014, the respondents had indicated that there are 3 tenderers and all the tenderers are responsive. Further, the Executive Engineer (P), PWD, Project Circle, Aizawl, Mizoram has certified that he has personally conducted a test check of all the computed and checked tenders and have satisfied himself that the checking work has been properly done and that the comparative statement correctly incorporates the totals as checked on the individual tenders. However, the respondent No. 5 had observed on the comparative statement that there are a number of mistake/discrepancies in the tender BOQ which may lead to number of problems in execution. It was on the basis of the noting made by the respondent No. 5 that the said noting was approved by the higher authorities leading to the cancellation of the NIT. He submits that amongst the 3 tenderers, the petitioner was found to be the lowest and when the comparative statement was prepared, all the tenders were found to be responsive. This being the admitted position, it was duty bound on the part of the respondents to have awarded the work to the petitioner instead of cancelling the NIT solely on the basis of the noting made by the respondent No. 5.

4. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel also submits that the respondent No. 5 while cancelling the NIT had only cited the cause for cancellation as being due to technical reason and nothing else. This being the position, the notice dated 4.4.2014 is not tenable inasmuch as it was a notice without any explanation made therein. In the list of mistake committed in the BOQ which was also enclosed along with the notice dated 4.4.2014, it can be seen that such mistake were very minimal giving no cause for any reason to have a technical mistake. The NIT is only floated after proper technical checking by the respondents. Therefore, when the NIT was floated and the tender papers were opened, a comparative statement was prepared showing that the tenderers are responsive to the NIT. The respondents had cancelled the NIT with ulterior motives and not as indicated by the respondents in the notice date