Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.D. Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Senapati, Advocate representing ONGC Ltd. as well as Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel and Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Khound, Advocate representing the Private Respondent No. 9. The petitioner M/s. Kakoti Engineering Works is a registered firm having its own engineering workshop in the district of Sivasagar with experience in repair and fabrication job of Oil Field/Rig Equipment and is registered under Entrepreneur Memorandum Part II (hereinafter referred to as 'EM Part II') and is also registered under the Assam Preferential Stores Purchase Act, 1989.

2. By e-Tender dated 27.6.2014, issued from the Office of the Respondent No. 4, bids were invited for rate contract in repair/fabrication work, painting rigs and equipment and bunk houses repairing. The scheme of the bid was a two bid system, i.e. technical and financial. The last date of submission of bid as well as for opening of technical bid was fixed on 28.7.2014. Pursuant thereto, both the petitioner and the private Respondent No. 9, i.e. Raju Ali submitted their bids through e-Tender. Be it mentioned that the parameters for evaluation of bid was governed under the Bid Evaluation Criteria as well as under the Scope of Work and Technical Specification as provided in Annexure-III, III(A) and IV to the Bid Document: On 28.7.2014, the Respondent ONGC opened the techno-commercial bids of both the petitioner and the Respondent No. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of opening of the technical bid, certain glaring irregularities were found in the technical bid of the Respondent No. 9.

3. According to the petitioner, the Respondent No. 9 did not have the experience in repair and fabrication job related to drilling operations in terms of Clause 2.1(a)(i) of the Bid Evaluation Criteria read with "Clause A" of the Scope of Works and Technical Specifications governing the tender. Also, the Respondent No. 9 did not have its own workshop in Sivasagar district duly registered in its name under the statute of the Government of Assam in terms of Clause 3.0 of the Bid Evaluation Criteria.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner represented before the Respondent No. 4 Immediately on 30.7.2014, in writings pointing put the defects in the technical bid of Respondent No. 9, followed by another representation dated 4.8.2014 with copy forwarded to the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre ('DICC for short), Sivasagar with prayer to verify as to whether the Respondent No. 9 has its own registered workshop in Sivasagar district or not.

5. The reply, received from the General Manager, DICC, indicated that the Respondent No. 9 is a registered unit as EM Part II vide Acknowledgement No. 18/16/12/01483 dated 18.6.2014.

6. Violation of the terms and conditions of the tender was also alleged, in that, ONGC had permitted the Respondent No. 9 to submit documents even after the last date of sub-mission of bid. One such document is the Factory Licence of Respondent No. 9 which, according to the petitioner, in any case proves that the actual existence of a workshop was from a date subsequent to the last date of submission of tender. Petitioner had raised objection before the Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 6.2.2015. According to the petitioner, the various objections raised in respect of the deficiencies appearing in the techno-commercial bid of Respondent No. 9 remained unheeded to. Through an e-mail received on 6.2.2015, the petitioner came to learn that the price bid would be opened on 9.2.2015 at 3 PM and that ONGC authority had also decided to open the price bid of the Respondent No. 9 along with that of the petitioner. Constrained thus, the instant writ petition came to be filed and by order of this Court dated 9.2.2015, the Responde