A.K. GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Mr. B. Sarma. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos.4359/2018 and 4360/2018.

3. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 20.02.2018 was issued by the office of the Chief Engineer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, for the following works:

“At Kamakhya yard – Augmentation of Coach Maintenance facilities by providing additional Pit line no.3 (630m) and providing additional Sick line no.3 (250m) by extension and conversion of existing Parcel Siding (80m), extension of existing Sick line Shed by 120m, extension of Shunting Neck (Dead End) towards RNY (160m) to provide reception and dispatch facilities in Stabling line 4 and & 5, diversion of service road near Sick Shed on existing Drain and other Ancillary works in connection with NBQ-GLPT-KYQ Doubling Project.”

4. The tender value as indicated in the NIT is Rs.49,09,48,021.53. The open tenders were invited through e-Tendering system. The respondent had submitted his tender. It is not in dispute that the tender of the respondent was rejected as incomplete on the ground that the affidavit submitted by the respondent along with the tender was not as per format, namely, Annexure-C of the tender documents. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had not submitted tender as per Annexure-C, but had otherwise submitted an affidavit. The learned Single Judge compared format of Annexure-C with the affidavit filed by the respondent and opined that an analysis of the affidavits would reveal that the substance in both the affidavits is same and accordingly, held that rejection of the respondent’s tender at the technical bid stage was more of form than of substance and, accordingly, directed the appellant to open the price bid of the respondent for consideration on its own merit vis-à-vis the price of the other tenderers which had already been opened.

5. On 09.07.2018, the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order to the effect that price bid should not be opened. However, it appears that much prior to passing of the interim order, on 29.06.2018, price bid were opened. It is also not in dispute that after opening of the price bid, the respondent had physically handed over an affidavit in the prescribed format Annexure-C on 02.07.2018.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Dasgupta that the “Note” of the tender, which is above the eligibility criteria as prescribed in clause 2, made it absolutely clear that the tenderers are compulsorily required to submit affidavit as per Annexure-C and without that the offer of the tenderer will be considered as incomplete and would be rejected summarily. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to “Instructions to the tenderers” and more particularly, to clause A.(ix), to contend that the “Note” was reiterated in bold letters and despite that, the respondent had chosen to submit affidavit in his own terms. He submits that when the tendering authority had made the above stipulation, the learned Single Judge was wholly unjustified in passing the impugned order. Mr. Dasgupta has further submitted that the learned Single Judge was, in any event, not justified in directing opening of price bid of the respondent, when his technical bid was not considered. Without consideration of the technical bid, no direction could have been issued for opening the price bid, he contends. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited and another Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622, with particular emphasis on paragraphs 49 and 50.

7. Mr. Sahewalla has submitted that the ratio of Central Coalfields Limited (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as submission of an affidavit i