Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 220(AP)/2017. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) 287(AP)/2017. Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appears for respondent nos. 1 to 4 whereas Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appears for private respondent no. 5, in both the writ petitions. Since both these writ petitions are related to the same tender hence, those are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.

2. The Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had earlier issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB) dated 08.12.2016 inviting Single Stage Bids in two parts for execution of the project, viz. Electrification works of Itanagar town, Naharlagun town & Seppa town, Pasighat town, Aalo town, Daporij o town, Tezu town and Namsai town in Arunachal Pradesh under Integrated Power Development Scheme (IPDS), through a process of e-tendering. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 150.90 crores (Rupees one hundred fifty crores and 90 lakhs). The work is to be executed under a centrally sponsored scheme to be funded by the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (REC)/ Power Finance Corporation Ltd. (PFC), wherein the Government of Arunachal Pradesh is the implementing agency. The project is required to be executed on a "Trunkey" basis with the financial assistance received by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh from the Central Government Agencies.

3. In response to the said IFB, 3 (three) tenderers, viz. M/s. BS Limited, M/s. T&T Projects Limited and M/s. Capital Power Infrastructure Limited had submitted their bids in sealed cover. The technical bids of all the 3 tenderers were opened on 11.01.2017, where after, it was found that the bids submitted by all the 3 (three) bidders were technically responsive. Accordingly, the financial bids of the 3 bidders were opened on 02.02.2017, where after it was found that M/s. T&T Projects Ltd. had quoted an amount of Rs. 149,83,000,00.08P (L-3); M/s. Capital Power Infrastructure Private Ltd. had quoted Rs. 127,21,24,219.93 P (L-2) whereas M/s. B.S Ltd had quoted Rs. 109,49,01,337.97P (L-1).

4. Since the bids submitted by all the three tenderers were found to be technically valid, hence, by following the mandate of Clause 30.1 of the ITB, the departmental authorities had decided to award the work in favour of M/s. BS Ltd. Since the bid submitted by the said firm had emerged as the lowest (L-l) bidder. Accordingly, a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 24.03.2017 was issued in favour of M/s. B.S. Ltd. i.e. the private respondent in both the writ petitions awarding the work. However, taking cognizance of the law price quoted by the said firm as compared to the estimated cost of the work, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh had put up a note dated 22.03.2017 directing that the L-1 bidder be asked to deposit additional performance security of 10% so as to ensure quality and time bound completion of the contract work.

5. Assailing the decision of the respondent authorities to award the work in favour of M/s. B.S. Ltd. i.e. the respondent no.5, M/s. T&T Projects Ltd. i.e. the L-3 bidder has approached this Court by filing WP(C) 220 (AP)/2017, inter-alia, contending that having regard to the estimated cost of the work valued at Rs. 150,09,000,00.00, the price quoted by the respondent no. 5 was abnormally low, which is below 27% of the tender value, and as such the price bid of the respondent no. 5 was liable to be rejected as a substantially non-responsive bid. The aforesaid contention of the writ petitioner is primarily based on Section 20.4.3.2 of the CPWD Manual, 2014 which mandates that rates quoted 10% below the estimated cost should not be accepted. It is also the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C) 220 (AP)/2017 that the rate quoted by the