JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred assailing a speaking order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Assam in respect of a contract work under Hailakandi Water Resources Division and for setting aside of a work order dated 08.07.2020 issued in favour of the respondent no. 4 in respect of the said contract work in question and also for a direction to the respondent authorities in the Water Resources Department to issue a fresh work order for the said contract work in favour of the petitioner.

2. The background facts leading to the institution of and necessary for adjudication of the instant writ petition may be adverted to as follows.

3. By a Press Notice for Bid dated 27.4.2020 issued by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Assam, bids were invited for a number of works including one work under the Hailakandi Water Resources Division viz. "Immediate measures to dyke along L/B of Katakhal from Gaglacherra to Nutanbazar for restoration of breach like damages occurred at Bamun Lekai for 2019-2020 (Under SDRF)" (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject-work', for easy reference).

4. Considering himself to be eligible and qualified to submit the bid, the petitioner obtained the Bid Document for the subject-work. As per the Invitation for Bid (IFB) and tender details provided in the Bid Document, the approximate value of the subject-work was Rs. 1,49,99,800.88 and the period of completion stipulated for the subject-work had been mentioned as 60 (sixty) days. As per the Press Notice for Bid and the IFB, the contractors/bidders registered with the Water Resources Department, Assam who had experience in execution of works in the Water Resources Department and who possessed the required technical and financial strength could obtain the Standard Bid Document by downloading it from the concerned website. As per the Bid Document schedule, the bid submission end date was 06.05.2020. The bid opening date was mentioned as 7.5.2020.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that after compliance of the necessary formalities, he submitted the bid within the stipulated time period along with the requisite documents necessary to be accompanied with his bid. As, per the Bid Document, a bidder had to submit both the technical bid and the financial bid together on-line. The Bid Document had further listed the documents which were required to be submitted by a bidder along with the technical bid. The technical bids were opened on 07.05.2020 and as per the information received by the petitioner, two bidders i.e., the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 were shown to be qualified on the technical bid opening date. The petitioner came to know about the said information from the Minutes of the meeting of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 18.06.2020. The technical bids of two other bidders were not admitted.

6. Some relevant information regarding the bid of the respondent no. 4 came to the knowledge of the petitioner immediately thereafter. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 did not submit the document required to be submitted in compliance of Clause 4(1)(e) and Clause 12(A)(j) of the Bid Document in the prescribed format. Clause 4(1) (e) and Clause 12(A)(j) of the Bid Document required submission of a certificate/up-to-date progress for all the works allotted to the bidder during the preceding 3 (three) financial years prior to the financial year on which tenders were called i.e. 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019', which is referred to hereinafter as 'completion/progress certificate' for the sake of easy reference. Such completion/progress certificate was required to be issued by the authorised Executive Engineer In-charge wherein some details were required to be incorporated under his official seal.

7. Contending that the completion/progress certificate submitted by the respondent no