ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, along with Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati Municipal Corporation (GMC), appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. R. L. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

2. The respondent No. 1 had floated an Invitation For Bid (for short, "tender notice") dated 05.12.2017 for the work of "2 Nos. of raw water pump sets for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of electrical motor driven Horizonal Multistage (10 stage) centrifugal pump (220 HP) having efficiency not less than 73% with rated impeller dia not less than 271 mm., coupled with TEFC squirrel cage foot mounted induction motor suitable for operation with 415 (+-10%) V, 3 phase power supply with star-delta starter at 2nd Stage Pumping Station along with common distribution panel board under Kamakhya Water Supply Scheme" (for short, "the work in question").

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that in response to the said tender notice, the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and some other tenderers had submitted bids. Prior to floating of the said tender notice dated 05.12.2017, respondent No. 1 had floated another tender notice dated 10.11.2017 for the same purpose and, as all the tenders were found to be technically disqualified on 29.11.2017, the fresh re-tender notice dated 05.12.2017 was issued. It is averred that respondent No. 3 had emerged as the L-3 bidder while the petitioner had emerged as the L-2 bidder. The L-1 bidder was disqualified. However, despite there being various irregularities in the bid of the respondent No. 3, as stated in paragraph 17(a) to 17(h) of the writ petition, the Tender Evaluation Committee, in its meeting held on 14.12.2017 recommended award of the contract in favour of respondent No. 3. It is pleaded that the respondent No. 1 considered the bid of the petitioner to be non-responsive for non-submission of power of attorney and that such ground has no basis as the respondents, by their own act and conduct, had waived the necessity of submission of power of attorney as, during the first round, when all the bids had been rejected, non-submission of power of attorney was not made a ground for rejection of the bid of the petitioner.

4. In the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated that the respondent No. 3 had submitted a Term Deposit Receipt (TDR) towards earnest money deposit which is valid for a period of one year and the date of expiry of the TDR was incorrectly uploaded in the website. Paragraph 17 (a) to 17(h) of the writ petition is dealt with at paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. In the affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a notice dated 16.12.2017, asking the respondent No. 3 to proceed with the work, is annexed. It is pleaded that the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of the bid condition at Clause 3(a), which requires furnishing of original power of attorney for signing the bid and, therefore, the bid of the petitioner was rightly rejected.

5. Respondent No. 3 had also filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner had needlessly introduced the concept of "revised tender" and, in fact, the tender notice dated 05.12.2017 was an independent tender notice having nothing to do with the previous tender notice dated 10.11.2017. It is also pleaded that the bid of the petitioner was rightly rejected as the petitioner did not annex any power of attorney/authorization of the Board of Directors of the petitioner company authorizing the petitioner to submit bid. It is stated that the one year validity of the earnest money deposit does not apply to a TDR and the same is applicable only to Demand Draft/Banker's Cheque as the pledgee has full right to encash TDR/Fixed Deposit receipt even after the maturity date is over.

6. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has