Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

This petition, filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of award of contract dated 26.03.2013 in favour of respondent No. 3.

2. Contract in question, is "Renovation and Modification of River Vessel TS Brahmaputra (CTC)".

3. Director of Inland Water Transport, Assam (respondent No. 2), issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 22.02.2013, inviting sealed tenders for the above contract work, the estimated cost of which was Rs. 86,74,190.00. Earnest money fixed was 2% of the quoted value and the period of completion was 60 days from the date of issue of work order.

4. Petitioner responded to the NIT and submitted tender. Tenders were opened on 14.03.2013. It was found that out of the 7 bidders, respondent No.3 was the lowest bidder (L 1) at Rs. 72,66,758.00. Respondent No. 4 was the second lowest bidder at Rs. 82,38,007.00. Bid of the petitioner was the 3rd lowest at Rs. 83,50,183.00. Thereafter, by letter dated 26.03.2013, respondent No. 2 awarded the contract to the respondent No. 3 at his offered bid.

5. Aggrieved by the above, petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the aforesaid award of contract dated 26.03.2013.

6. Contention of the petitioner is that as per Clause 3 of the NIT, a tenderer has to submit Income Tax (IT) Returns of last 3 financial years and must have minimum annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore in the last financial year. Earnest money at the rate of 2% of the total quoted value in the form of NSC/KVP/Bank Draft pledged in favour of respondent No. 2 should be submitted. Successful tenderer will have to make security deposit at the rate of 10% of the quoted rate which would include the 2% earnest money deposit. The tenderer should enclose documents in support of previous experience in performing works of similar nature. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 did not submit IT Returns for last 3 financial years and the turnover statement was not authenticated by Chartered Accountant. Moreover, respondent No. 3 submitted only an experience certificate without the specification and names of works done. Further, whole earnest money was not pledged in favour of respondent No. 2. After award of contract, petitioner has not deposited the security money. Therefore, the contract awarded to respondent No. 3 should be interfered with.

7. Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit stated that Tender Committee constituted by the Government after due verification of the tender documents submitted by the tenderers recommended award of contract in favour of respondent No. 3 being the L 1 tenderer. IT Returns for last 3 years were submitted by respondent No. 3. There is no requirement in the NIT that IT Return should be authenticated by Chartered Accountant. Respondent No. 3 was found to be an experienced contractor having executed similar nature of works in the past. Regarding deposit of earnest money, though the entire earnest money was not pledged in favour of respondent No. 2, but as per decision of Tender Committee, respondent No. 3 was allowed to deposit the balance earnest money before execution of agreement. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 deposited the balance earnest money pledged to respondent No. 2 before execution of agreement. As per work order, respondent No. 3 is required to deposit 10% of the security money, which would be deducted from his subsequent bills. Tender Committee notified by the Government comprised of following members :-

(i)	Director Inland Water Transport, Assam Ulubari, Guwahati – 07.	Chairman
(ii)	Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department, Dispur, Ghy – 06.	Member
(iii)	Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical) Assam, PWD, Guwahati	Member
(iv)	Financial Adviser, Transport Department, Dispur	Member
(v)	Deputy Director (Design